https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16797 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) correctly followed the procedure under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) was not acting as the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment completed on September 3, 1983, was within the extended limitation period and deemed valid. The decision favored the Department over the assessee, with the court ruling against the latter. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:51:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16797 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) correctly followed the procedure under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) was not acting as the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment completed on September 3, 1983, was within the extended limitation period and deemed valid. The decision favored the Department over the assessee, with the court ruling against the latter. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16797