2010 (12) TMI 910

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve been taken from Income Tax Reference No. 15 of 2000. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act'"), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, (in short "the Tribunal") on the direction of this Court, vide order dated 28.8.1997, arising out of ITA No. 350 (ASR/1991 at the instance of the Revenue, relating to assessment year 1977-78, has referred the following question of law, for the opinion of this Court:   "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the provisions of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice issued under section 148 of the Act was not invalid specially when the assessee had consciously and intentionally ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ever, cancelled the assessments by holding that the notices under Section 148 were totally vague and did not specify the status in which the returns were to be filed and such notices would not give rise to assume jurisdiction for framing valid assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax {in short "the CIT"}, filed a Reference Application under Section 256(1) of the Act requesting the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question of law for the opinion of this Court. The application was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal and the Revenue thereafter filed a petition under Section 256(2) of the Act and it was in that petition that this Court directed the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question for its opinion, and it is how the same has been referr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h could not be cured under Section 292B of the Act by the Revenue. The counsel submitted that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the plea of the Revenue and the question of law as claimed deserves to be decided against it. Support in that behalf was sought from the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF), (2005) 277 ITR 197 (All.), Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 280 ITR 396 (All.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rohtas, (2009) 311 ITR 460 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. K. Adinarayana Murty, (1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC).   We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and find weight in the submissions....