O.M.PRAKASH, J. - (1.) THESE are the two applications relating to asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 by the assessee under s. 356 (2) of the IT Act, 1961 requiring this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following identical questions : " 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that notice under S. 143 (2) sent under registered cover could be treated as valid service having regarded to the provisions of S. 282 of the IT Act and in absence of any finding that the service was affected on the principal officer or an agent authorised in that behalf by the applicant ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was there any material on the record in support of the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant has failed to discharge the onus that lay on it that the impugned notice under S. 143 (2) was not validly served and the assessment under s. 144 was bad ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in placing the burden on the applicant to prove that the service was not validly affected and upholding the service as valid since the notice had been served under registered post ? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its view that the assessment made in pursuance to the notice sent under registered cover was valid and whether there was any material in support of such finding ? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in raising presumption of valid service in respect of the notice sent under registered cover in absence of any finding that the notice was property addressed and serve on the principal officer or any authorised person in that behalf as required by the provisions of S. 282 of the IT Act. 6. Whether the Tribunal was right in its view that the application under S. 146 which was filed beyond time was not liable to be entertained and the IT authorities had no inherent jurisdiction to condone the delay in absence of any specific provision in that behalf under the Act ?"
(2.) ORDER for the relevant years were passed by the ITO on 2nd Feb., 1979 under S. 144 of the Act. For setting aside of the same, the assessee sent application by registered post under S. 146 of the Act on 24th March, 1979 to the ITO which were received by him on 27th March, 1979. They were rejected by him on the ground that they were barred by time. The ITO took the view that the assessment orders and the demand notice having been served on 23rd Feb., 1979, the application under S. 146 of the Act should have been made on or before 23rd March, 1979. In appeal the IT CIT (A) reversed the orders of the ITO holding that the ITO had an inherent power to condone the delay in such matters. On there the delay in such matters. On further appeal, the Tribunal took the view that the IT CIT (A) was wrong in holding that the ITO had an inherent power to condone the delay. Also it was found by the Tribunal that the demand notice and assessment orders had been properly served on 23rd Feb., 1979. Then the assessee made application under S. 256 (1) of the Act, 1961 raising the instant question but they were rejected by the Tribunal.
(3.) IN our opinion, common question No. 1 to 4 to not arise from the Tribunal's order and, therefore they are rejected.;