https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16456 The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the initiation of recovery proceedings under section 226(3) without a separate notice of demand under section 156. The court held that the intimation served the purpose of a notice of demand, deeming it sufficient. Additionally, the court ruled that coercive steps under section 226(3) could proceed even during the pendency of an application before the Commissioner of Income-tax, as the petitioner could have sought a stay before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction did not warrant interference in the recovery proceedings. en-us Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:22:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16456 The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the initiation of recovery proceedings under section 226(3) without a separate notice of demand under section 156. The court held that the intimation served the purpose of a notice of demand, deeming it sufficient. Additionally, the court ruled that coercive steps under section 226(3) could proceed even during the pendency of an application before the Commissioner of Income-tax, as the petitioner could have sought a stay before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction did not warrant interference in the recovery proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16456