https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384871 Rule 68B of the Second Schedule links limitation for sale of attached immovable property to the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand becomes conclusive. An intimation under Section 143(1) is not that operative order, because its deeming fiction as a notice of demand applies only to recovery machinery and does not convert it into the assessment order fixing liability. Where scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) exists, the later assessment order governs limitation, and if that order is still under appeal, it has not become final for Rule 68B purposes. The limitation challenge based on the earlier intimation therefore fails. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384871 Rule 68B of the Second Schedule links limitation for sale of attached immovable property to the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand becomes conclusive. An intimation under Section 143(1) is not that operative order, because its deeming fiction as a notice of demand applies only to recovery machinery and does not convert it into the assessment order fixing liability. Where scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) exists, the later assessment order governs limitation, and if that order is still under appeal, it has not become final for Rule 68B purposes. The limitation challenge based on the earlier intimation therefore fails. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384871