https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16490 The court upheld the validity of the notice served under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, rejecting the petitioner's argument that it was invalid. It also ruled that the proceedings were not time-barred as the relevant section had been omitted after the notice was issued. The court found the affidavit false based on rejection and upheld the recovery of Rs. 10.74 lakhs despite the specified amount in the notice being lower. Additionally, it highlighted the availability of revision as the appropriate remedy, dismissing the writ petition and directing disciplinary action for delays in recovery proceedings. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:44:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16490 The court upheld the validity of the notice served under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, rejecting the petitioner's argument that it was invalid. It also ruled that the proceedings were not time-barred as the relevant section had been omitted after the notice was issued. The court found the affidavit false based on rejection and upheld the recovery of Rs. 10.74 lakhs despite the specified amount in the notice being lower. Additionally, it highlighted the availability of revision as the appropriate remedy, dismissing the writ petition and directing disciplinary action for delays in recovery proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16490