1989 (5) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the case was posted for rehearing. Counsel for the parties appearing are agreed that there is a typographical mistake in our order dated December 15, 1988. Accordingly, we recall that order and proceed to pass a fresh order to correct the mistake. For the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred the following common question for opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer had afforded the assessee an opportunity under section 186(2) as required under law before cancellation of registration?" The assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment years in question, the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 for MI the assessment years in question on January 7, 1975, which was served on the assessee on January 20, 1975. The assessee filed returns. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the returns and on June 23, 1975, issued notice to the assessee under section 142 to produce the account books on July 9, 1975. The details of the account books to be produced were mentioned and were the same which were seized by the sales tax authorities. On July 9, 1975, the assessee sought adjournment for July 24, 1975, instead of producing the account books and again sought adjournment for July 28, 1975. Even on July 28, 1975, the account books were not produced and the Income-tax Officer framed the assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act ....