1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.427 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax City II .. Appellant Versus Laxminarayan S. Agarwal .. Respondent Ms.Anamika Malhotra for appellant. Mr.S.N.Porwal for respondent CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ. & A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 8th August 2008 P.C. . Present appeal is directed against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 14th October 2004. The Tribunal was dealing with assessment year 1993-94. According to facts recorded in the order impugned in the present appeal, an assessee had filed his Return 2 by a letter 20th September 1996. The Assessing Officer had to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on or before 31st October 1997. However, such notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 2nd September 1998 which was served upon the petitioner on 9th September 1998. On these facts it accepted the point of the Assessee that notice under section 143(2) was served beyond the prescribed period of Limitation. Resultantly, the proceedings were not tenable in the eyes of law. The Tribunal followed this view taken in the case of Uma Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in Vol.123 Taxman Magazine 226. 2. We may also notice that such an approach would be in consonance with the provisions of Section 143(2) which in turn would be applicable to the proceedings under section 148 of the Act. The Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of 3 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts, reported in (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj) also has expressed the same view. No question of law, much less, a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) (A.P.Deshpande, J).