The reassessment notice was issued in the name of my old private limited company, which had already been converted into an LLP and dissolved. I am told that makes the notice void. Is that always right?
Not always, and this is the decision the Revenue will cite against you. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the issue of the notice in the name of the dissolved private limited company was an error and technical lapse which caused no prejudice, that there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else, and that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid — that being the effect and mandate of section 292B. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition with the words: 'In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.'
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court: A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. High Court: Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, JJ. (judgment delivered orally by Sanjiv Khanna, J.)) on 2018-04-06, reported as Supreme Court: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7409/2018, order dated 6 April 2018, arising out of the final judgment and order dated 2 February 2018 of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 10870/2017 and CM No. 44503/2017; assessment year 2010-11. The High Court judgment is referred to in Maruti Suzuki as Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi).. It bears on section 292B, section 147, section 148, section 151, section 127, section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The library must carry both sides of this line, and this is the side that says section 292B CAN cure. What decides which side you are on is not a rule but a fact-finding, and the facts that put this case on the curative side are identifiable and should be checked one by one. There was substantial and affirmative material on record showing that the wrong name was a mistake: the conversion into an LLP was noticed and mentioned in the tax evasion report, in the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer, in the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner and in the order under section 127; the PAN of the LLP appeared in some of those documents; and the notice was actually out of conformity with the file noting. On top of that, the recipient's own reply showed it had understood and was aware that the notice was for it. The High Court itself expressly distinguished the Spice Infotainment line on a ground that practitioners should hold on to: that was not a case in which a notice under section 147/148 was declared void, but a case in which an ASSESSMENT ORDER was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist, and such an order is void and illegal. That distinction — defect in the notice, capable of cure where no prejudice results, as against an assessment order made against a dead juristic person — is the working line. And the Supreme Court's own later treatment of this order, in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, is essential: the Court there said that a close reading of the order dated 6 April 2018 indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the special leave petition were the peculiar facts of the case, and concluded that there is no conflict between Spice Entertainment and Skylight Hospitality LLP. So this decision is not a general licence under section 292B; it is authority for what happens when the record itself shows the mistake was clerical and the recipient was in no doubt.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Sky Light Hospitality LLP had on 13 May 2016 taken over and acquired the rights and liabilities of Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited upon conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008; the company ceased to exist and was dissolved on that date under section 56 of that Act. The return for assessment year 2010-11 filed by the private limited company had been processed under section 143(1) and not subjected to scrutiny. On 30 March 2017 a notice under sections 147/148 was issued for assessment year 2010-11 addressed to Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and quoting that company's PAN. The reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer referred to a tax evasion petition from the investigation unit, and themselves recorded that the assessee was previously called Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd and was presently known as Sky Light Hospitality LLP, having converted on 13 May 2016. The conversion was also mentioned in the tax evasion report, in the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner and in the order under section 127, and the LLP's PAN appeared in some of those documents. The LLP received the notice and filed a without-prejudice reply dated 11 April 2017 objecting that the notice had been issued in the name of a company that had ceased to exist. Objections to the initiation were rejected by the Assessing Officer, who in that order sought to defend the notice as rightly issued. The LLP challenged the notice and the rejection order by writ petition in the Delhi High Court, contending that a notice to a dead juristic person is void, that section 292B could not apply because issue of notice in the correct name is a jurisdictional pre-condition and the Assessing Officer had acted deliberately rather than by mistake, and that there was no live nexus in the reasons to believe.
The writ petition was dismissed and the special leave petition against that dismissal was dismissed. The High Court held that the reasons to believe established a live link and justified the issue of the notice; that the issue of the notice in the name of Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent which caused no prejudice, because there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else; and that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid where no prejudice has been caused, that being the effect and mandate of section 292B (paragraphs 9, 17 and 21). The Court expressly clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that in the peculiar facts of the case the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B.
The High Court first satisfied itself on the reasons to believe, holding that at the stage of issue of notice firm and conclusive findings are not required and that the reasons showed an honest and reasonable opinion and not mere suspicion (paragraph 9). On the name, it accepted that the private limited company had ceased to exist and been dissolved upon conversion into an LLP with effect from 13 May 2016 (paragraph 10), but found substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record to show that issue of the notice in the dissolved company's name was a mistake — the conversion was noticed and mentioned in the tax evasion report, in the reasons to believe, in the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner and in the order under section 127, the LLP's PAN was mentioned in some of these documents, and the notice was not in conformity with the file noting (paragraph 11). It rejected the Mohinder Singh Gill objection that the Assessing Officer had defended rather than admitted the mistake, holding that the attempt to justify the notice could not obliterate the factual position and that reliance on a statutory provision, if applicable, cannot be denied because of the reasoning given in the order rejecting objections (paragraph 12). It then set out section 292B and applied the construction adopted by a Division Bench of the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagat Novel Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 356 ITR 559 (Del), which it reproduced at paragraphs 13 and 15, to the effect that the provision was enacted to curtail technical pleas where there is effective compliance, that the primary requirement is to examine whether any prejudice or confusion was caused, and that the test is whether the party receiving the notice would be in doubt whether it was meant for him. Applying that ratio, it held at paragraph 17 that it was a complete answer, that there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else, that the petitioner's own reply showed it had understood and was aware that the notice was for it, and that no prejudice was caused. It distinguished Spice Infotainment at paragraph 18 on the footing that there the ASSESSMENT ORDER, not the notice, had been passed in the name of a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved, and was therefore void and illegal, and it distinguished Dimension Apparels and Intel Technology at paragraph 20 on the same basis. At paragraph 21 it criticised the Assessing Officer's lapses but held that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid where no prejudice had been caused. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the special leave petition, recorded that in the peculiar facts of the case it was convinced that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B.
In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot always, and this is the decision the Revenue will cite against you. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the issue of the notice in the name of the dissolved private limited company was an error and technical lapse which caused no prejudice, that there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else, and that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid — that being the effect and mandate of section 292B. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition with the words: 'In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.' This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court: A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. High Court: Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, JJ. (judgment delivered orally by Sanjiv Khanna, J.)) and bears on section 292B, section 147, section 148, section 151, section 127, section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Supreme Court: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7409/2018, order dated 6 April 2018, arising out of the final judgment and order dated 2 February 2018 of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 10870/2017 and CM No. 44503/2017; assessment year 2010-11. The High Court judgment is referred to in Maruti Suzuki as Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi).. The library must carry both sides of this line, and this is the side that says section 292B CAN cure. What decides which side you are on is not a rule but a fact-finding, and the facts that put this case on the curative side are identifiable and should be checked one by one. There was substantial and affirmative material on record showing that the wrong name was a mistake: the conversion into an LLP was noticed and mentioned in the tax evasion report, in the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer, in the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner and in the order under section 127; the PAN of the LLP appeared in some of those documents; and the notice was actually out of conformity with the file noting. On top of that, the recipient's own reply showed it had understood and was aware that the notice was for it. The High Court itself expressly distinguished the Spice Infotainment line on a ground that practitioners should hold on to: that was not a case in which a notice under section 147/148 was declared void, but a case in which an ASSESSMENT ORDER was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist, and such an order is void and illegal. That distinction — defect in the notice, capable of cure where no prejudice results, as against an assessment order made against a dead juristic person — is the working line. And the Supreme Court's own later treatment of this order, in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, is essential: the Court there said that a close reading of the order dated 6 April 2018 indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the special leave petition were the peculiar facts of the case, and concluded that there is no conflict between Spice Entertainment and Skylight Hospitality LLP. So this decision is not a general licence under section 292B; it is authority for what happens when the record itself shows the mistake was clerical and the recipient was in no doubt. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Before you concede that a notice in a dead entity's name is fatal, and before you assert that it is, go through the Assessing Officer's whole file: the reasons to believe, the approval under section 151, any order under section 127, and any investigation report, and see whether the successor entity and its PAN are named in them.
Sky Light Hospitality LLP had on 13 May 2016 taken over and acquired the rights and liabilities of Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited upon conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008; the company ceased to exist and was dissolved on that date under section 56 of that Act. The return for assessment year 2010-11 filed by the private limited company had been processed under section 143(1) and not subjected to scrutiny. On 30 March 2017 a notice under sections 147/148 was issued for assessment year 2010-11 addressed to Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and quoting that company's PAN. The reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer referred to a tax evasion petition from the investigation unit, and themselves recorded that the assessee was previously called Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd and was presently known as Sky Light Hospitality LLP, having converted on 13 May 2016. The conversion was also mentioned in the tax evasion report, in the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner and in the order under section 127, and the LLP's PAN appeared in some of those documents. The LLP received the notice and filed a without-prejudice reply dated 11 April 2017 objecting that the notice had been issued in the name of a company that had ceased to exist. Objections to the initiation were rejected by the Assessing Officer, who in that order sought to defend the notice as rightly issued. The LLP challenged the notice and the rejection order by writ petition in the Delhi High Court, contending that a notice to a dead juristic person is void, that section 292B could not apply because issue of notice in the correct name is a jurisdictional pre-condition and the Assessing Officer had acted deliberately rather than by mistake, and that there was no live nexus in the reasons to believe. The matter was decided on 2018-04-06 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court: A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. High Court: Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, JJ. (judgment delivered orally by Sanjiv Khanna, J.)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The writ petition was dismissed and the special leave petition against that dismissal was dismissed. The High Court held that the reasons to believe established a live link and justified the issue of the notice; that the issue of the notice in the name of Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent which caused no prejudice, because there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else; and that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid where no prejudice has been caused, that being the effect and mandate of section 292B (paragraphs 9, 17 and 21). The Court expressly clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that in the peculiar facts of the case the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B.
The High Court first satisfied itself on the reasons to believe, holding that at the stage of issue of notice firm and conclusive findings are not required and that the reasons showed an honest and reasonable opinion and not mere suspicion (paragraph 9). On the name, it accepted that the private limited company had ceased to exist and been dissolved upon conversion into an LLP with effect from 13 May 2016 (paragraph 10), but found substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record to show that issue of the notice in the dissolved company's name was a mistake — the conversion was noticed and mentioned in the tax evasion report, in the reasons to believe, in the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner and in the order under section 127, the LLP's PAN was mentioned in some of these documents, and the notice was not in conformity with the file noting (paragraph 11). It rejected the Mohinder Singh Gill objection that the Assessing Officer had defended rather than admitted the mistake, holding that the attempt to justify the notice could not obliterate the factual position and that reliance on a statutory provision, if applicable, cannot be denied because of the reasoning given in the order rejecting objections (paragraph 12). It then set out section 292B and applied the construction adopted by a Division Bench of the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagat Novel Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 356 ITR 559 (Del), which it reproduced at paragraphs 13 and 15, to the effect that the provision was enacted to curtail technical pleas where there is effective compliance, that the primary requirement is to examine whether any prejudice or confusion was caused, and that the test is whether the party receiving the notice would be in doubt whether it was meant for him. Applying that ratio, it held at paragraph 17 that it was a complete answer, that there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else, that the petitioner's own reply showed it had understood and was aware that the notice was for it, and that no prejudice was caused. It distinguished Spice Infotainment at paragraph 18 on the footing that there the ASSESSMENT ORDER, not the notice, had been passed in the name of a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved, and was therefore void and illegal, and it distinguished Dimension Apparels and Intel Technology at paragraph 20 on the same basis. At paragraph 21 it criticised the Assessing Officer's lapses but held that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid where no prejudice had been caused. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the special leave petition, recorded that in the peculiar facts of the case it was convinced that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2018-04-06 and is reported as Supreme Court: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7409/2018, order dated 6 April 2018, arising out of the final judgment and order dated 2 February 2018 of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 10870/2017 and CM No. 44503/2017; assessment year 2010-11. The High Court judgment is referred to in Maruti Suzuki as Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi).. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 292B, section 147, section 148, section 151, section 127, section 143(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The writ petition was dismissed and the special leave petition against that dismissal was dismissed. The High Court held that the reasons to believe established a live link and justified the issue of the notice; that the issue of the notice in the name of Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent which caused no prejudice, because there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else; and that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid where no prejudice has been caused, that being the effect and mandate of section 292B (paragraphs 9, 17 and 21). The Court expressly clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that in the peculiar facts of the case the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 292B, section 147, section 148, section 151, section 127, section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court: A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. High Court: Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, JJ. (judgment delivered orally by Sanjiv Khanna, J.). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask whether the challenge is to a NOTICE or to an ASSESSMENT ORDER. The Delhi High Court distinguished Spice Infotainment precisely because that was an assessment order passed in the name of a dissolved juristic person, which it described as void and illegal. Test prejudice, not form. The question the High Court asked was whether the recipient was in any doubt that the notice was meant for him; a reply on the merits, even one marked without prejudice, will be used to show he was not. If you act for the assessee, put on record at the earliest point that you do not know whether the notice is meant for you, and do not engage on the merits before taking the objection — the letter of 11 April 2017 in this case was read against the petitioner. If you act for the Revenue, do not rely on this order as a general rule. The Supreme Court itself said in Maruti Suzuki that what weighed in the dismissal were the peculiar facts of the case. For a proceeding made or initiated during the pendency of a succession on or after 1 April 2022, check section 170(2A) first; it may make the section 292B argument unnecessary.
Still good law. Good law, but confined to its facts by the Supreme Court itself. In Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (25 July 2019), which is already in this library, the Court extracted this order in full at its paragraph 27, set out the peculiar facts of the Delhi High Court's decision, and held at paragraph 31 that 'A close reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018, however indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the peculiar facts of the case', concluding in the same paragraph that there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP on the other. At its paragraph 29 — not at paragraph 31 — the same judgment records that the decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in Rajender Kumar Sehgal, Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel and Alamelu Veerappan. None of those three decisions has been read for this entry, which states only that Maruti Suzuki names them. Beyond Maruti Suzuki no systematic later-treatment search has been made, and that check is outstanding. Read this entry with Spice Entertainment Ltd v. Commissioner (Delhi High Court, 3 August 2011), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd., all already in this library: the working distinction is between a defect in the NAME ON A NOTICE, curable under section 292B where the record shows a clerical error and the recipient was in no doubt, and an ASSESSMENT ORDER made in the name of and against a juristic person that has ceased to exist, which the Delhi High Court in this very judgment described at paragraph 18 as void and illegal. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Both the Supreme Court order and the High Court judgment have been read in full. The Supreme Court's Record of Proceedings in SLP (C) No. 7409/2018 prints the item number, court number, coram (A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.), counsel, the date 06-04-2018 and the operative order, and the operative words have been independently confirmed. Structure of the High Court judgment: it runs from the coram block through numbered paragraphs 1 to 23 with no gaps, followed by the signature block; paragraph 23 is 'To cut short delay, the petitioner would appear before the Assessing Officer on 19.02.2018 when the date of hearing will be fixed.' A warning on locators. Paragraphs 13 and 15 reproduce long extracts from the Division Bench's earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagat Novel Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 356 ITR 559 (Del), and those extracts carry Jagat Novel's own paragraph numbers 28, 29 and 42 to 47. Those numbers are not paragraphs of this judgment and nothing in this entry is cited to them. Paragraph 18 is not quoted matter: it is the Court's own narration of Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner, (2012) 247 CTR 500, and its own distinction of that case, which is why this entry relies on it. The reasons to believe reproduced at paragraph 6 are the Assessing Officer's words, not the Court's, and nothing is taken from them as a holding. A second warning, on the numbering itself. The High Court paragraph numbers used in this entry come from a copy whose numbering runs one lower than that of the reported judgment. The Supreme Court, extracting this very judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, numbers the passage beginning 'There was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else' as paragraph 18, and the passage beginning 'Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment Ltd.' as paragraph 19, where the copy used here numbers them 17 and 18. A reader working from (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi), or from the Supreme Court's extract, should add one to every High Court paragraph number given here. The later treatment in Maruti Suzuki has also been read — its paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 31, paragraph 35 being the last numbered paragraph and the disposal — and the sentence relied on from paragraph 31 has been independently corroborated. Maruti Suzuki is already in this library and is not proposed again. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was dismissed and the special leave petition against that dismissal was dismissed. The High Court held that the reasons to believe established a live link and justified the issue of the notice; that the issue of the notice in the name of Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent which caused no prejudice, because there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else; and that human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid where no prejudice has been caused, that being the effect and mandate of section 292B (paragraphs 9, 17 and 21). The Court expressly clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that in the peculiar facts of the case the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B.
TaxSphere, “Sky Light Hospitality LLP v ACIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/sky-light-hospitality-notice-in-name-of-erstwhile-company-cured-under-292b/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Your bank accounts are provisionally attached and the business cannot operate. Is there a way out short of paying?
The notice has come from an officer in a place I have nothing to do with. Can I say he has no jurisdiction, who decides that, and have I already lost the point by filing my return and answering him?
My file has been moved to another city under section 127. The order says only that it was for facility of investigation, and nobody has given me the reasons. Is that enough?
My case was transferred under section 127 to an Assessing Officer in another state — which High Court now hears the appeal against the Tribunal's order?
