https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38443 The appeal was dismissed as the Income-tax Officer issued the notice under section 148 mechanically, not applying his mind, falling under section 147(1)(b) instead of 147(1)(a). This triggered the application of section 153(2)(b)(ii), setting a time limit for reassessment. A subsequent notice served about 4 years later was deemed untimely, preventing reassessment. The judgment was upheld by R. N. Pyne J., granting a stay of operation for eight weeks. en-us Wed, 06 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38443 The appeal was dismissed as the Income-tax Officer issued the notice under section 148 mechanically, not applying his mind, falling under section 147(1)(b) instead of 147(1)(a). This triggered the application of section 153(2)(b)(ii), setting a time limit for reassessment. A subsequent notice served about 4 years later was deemed untimely, preventing reassessment. The judgment was upheld by R. N. Pyne J., granting a stay of operation for eight weeks. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38443