https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23592 Refusal to reopen a best-judgment assessment under section 146 was upheld where the firm and its partners evaded service of notices, failed to cooperate, and delayed completion of assessment proceedings; their reopening application lacked bona fides. Refusal to condone a delay exceeding three years in seeking revision was also upheld because no adequate ground established sufficient cause. The finding on sufficient cause was factual, with no material showing perversity or illegality. The writ challenge failed, leaving the Revenue's orders undisturbed. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:34:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23592 Refusal to reopen a best-judgment assessment under section 146 was upheld where the firm and its partners evaded service of notices, failed to cooperate, and delayed completion of assessment proceedings; their reopening application lacked bona fides. Refusal to condone a delay exceeding three years in seeking revision was also upheld because no adequate ground established sufficient cause. The finding on sufficient cause was factual, with no material showing perversity or illegality. The writ challenge failed, leaving the Revenue's orders undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23592