Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) THESE are two appeals under Section of the IT Act relating to the block period 1st April, 1988 to 28th April, 1998 arising from the order of the Tribunal dt. 6th Feb., 2009 raising the following substantial questions of law in both the appeals: IT Appeal No. 120 of 2009 (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned Tribunal is not erroneous in holding that the application of provision to Section would not be applicable to block assessment procedure and the matter would necessarily travel back to the file of AO for the purpose of curing the defect of non -service of notice under Section whereas the assessment deserves to be quashed? (ii) Whether such restoration is valid in terms of Section of the Act which cures only the defect or omission in the notice issued or purported to have been issued which in substance and effect is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act; but does not cure the non -service of notice in view of the fact that the (i) defect or omission in the notice and (ii) non -service of notice which refers to the act of omission but not to any defect, are entirely two different factors and cannot be combined as defect of non -service of notice? IT Appeal No. 126 of 2009 (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned Tribunal is not erroneous in holding that the application of provision to Section would not be applicable to block assessment procedure and the matter would necessarily travel back to the file of AO for the purpose of curing the defect of non -service of notice under Section whereas the assessment deserves to be quashed? (ii) Whether such restoration is valid in terms of Section of the Act which cures only the defect or omission in the notice issued or purported to have been issued which in substance and effect is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act; but does not cure the non -service of notice in view of the fact that the (i) defect or omission in the notice and (ii) non -service of notice which refers to the act of omission but not to any defect, are entirely two different factors and cannot be combined as defect of non -service of notice?
(2.) IT appears that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the ITO on 28th April, 1998 at the residential premises of the appellants and in pursuance thereof orders under Section were passed against both the appellants for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 28th April, 1998. It appears that both the appellants have filed the returns for the block period on 16th Nov., 1999. Challenging the order under Section the appellants filed appeals before the CIT(A). Both the appeals have been allowed in part.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the appellants as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the appellants have submitted that for making assessment under Section it is mandatory to issue and to serve notice under Section within the specified time. It was submitted that no notice was issued under Section within the specified time and, therefore, the entire block assessment orders against both the appellants were illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.;