https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234558 HC held the reassessment was not barred by limitation because the concurrent finding of omission/failure by the assessee to disclose liability for expenditure tax fell within clause (a) of Section 11 of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. The AO had validly completed assessment by accepting the returns, so issuance of a notice under Section 9(1) was unnecessary and reassessment under Section 11 was permissible. Pendency of the Department's SLP did not excuse nondisclosure. Decision against the appellant. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234558 HC held the reassessment was not barred by limitation because the concurrent finding of omission/failure by the assessee to disclose liability for expenditure tax fell within clause (a) of Section 11 of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. The AO had validly completed assessment by accepting the returns, so issuance of a notice under Section 9(1) was unnecessary and reassessment under Section 11 was permissible. Pendency of the Department's SLP did not excuse nondisclosure. Decision against the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234558