Extended limitation under section 11A required fresh scrutiny where suppression and wilful misstatement were specifically disputed.

Invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 11A depended on a valid finding of suppression and wilful misstatement. The Tribunal had treated the Collector's finding on those facts as uncontroverted and, on that basis, upheld the limitation objection against the assessee. The Supreme Court noted that the finding had in fact been specifically disputed before the Tribunal, and held that the correctness of that conclusion went to the root of the limitation issue. The finding was therefore set aside for fresh consideration, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on that limited question.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period under the proviso to section 11A could be invoked on the finding of suppression and wilful misstatement, and whether the Tribunal's finding on that aspect required reconsideration.

Analysis: The Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the Collector's finding of suppression and wilful misstatement had not been controverted and, on that footing, upheld invocation of the proviso to section 11A and rejected the limitation objection. The Court found merit in the contention that the finding had in fact been specifically disputed before the Tribunal. As the correctness of the Collector's conclusion on suppression and wilful misstatement went to the basis of the limitation question, the matter required fresh determination by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The finding on suppression and wilful misstatement was set aside for reconsideration and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on that limited question.

---