https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69050 An earlier order condoning delay and restoring the matter did not operate as res judicata on the merits of the quantum appeals, because it decided only sufficient cause for delay. An alleged oral assurance against prosecution was not proved from the written settlement record, so the settlement remained binding and promissory estoppel failed. Reopening under section 147(a) was supported by seized material, statements, and the assessee's own settlement petitions showing suppression of sales and undisclosed income. Reassessments made on the assessee's own returns and consent were not appealable by a party that was not a person aggrieved. en-us Mon, 26 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:39:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69050 An earlier order condoning delay and restoring the matter did not operate as res judicata on the merits of the quantum appeals, because it decided only sufficient cause for delay. An alleged oral assurance against prosecution was not proved from the written settlement record, so the settlement remained binding and promissory estoppel failed. Reopening under section 147(a) was supported by seized material, statements, and the assessee's own settlement petitions showing suppression of sales and undisclosed income. Reassessments made on the assessee's own returns and consent were not appealable by a party that was not a person aggrieved. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69050