2009 (3) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....961 (the Act), which order came to be communicated vide letter dated 27.02.2006 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-Q). The petitioner, an individual, has income from business carried on by the family members of the petitioner along with the petitioner in Partnerships, and two Proprietary concerns. On 29.08.1980, proceedings under Section 131(1) of the Act were undertaken at the various business premises and various books of accounts, cash books, stock registers, etc. pertaining to business were seized by the Department. This was followed by proceedings under Section 132 of the Act on 27.08.1981. It is the case of the petitioner that various letters were issued by the petitioner and other family members seeking return of various document....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been admittedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In relation to the year under consideration, the said return was not processed by respondent Department and the grievance of the petitioner in this regard is that because the return of income resulted in a refund likely to be made in favour of the petitioner, the said return has not been processed. It is further contended that the order impugned dated 27.02.2006 is merely a communication from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-III, and respondent Board has not made any order, and if any order is made, the same has not been communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted that said communication (Annexure-Q) cannot be termed to be an order in law in absence ....