TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 196-Alld/2007 for the assessment year 1992-93 to 1995-96; Cross Objections filed by the assessee in the aforesaid departmental appeals being C.O. No. 43, 44, 45 and 48 and; assessee's appeals no. 257 to 260/Alld/2004 for the assessment year 1992-93 to 1995-96. These appeals were admitted on the following questions of law:- "(A) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in reversing the well considered order of C.I.T. (Appeal) quashing the notice issued to appellant u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, only applying provisions of Section 55-A and 142-A-(i) overlooking fact that the said notice U/s 148 of the Act challenged interalia on the grounds of in sufficient reason for issuing the said notice? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiated. On the other hand the assessee raised the following three grounds in his Cross Objections. "1. Because the notice u/s 148 dated 15.2.2001 for A.Y. 1992-93 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Mau, is bad in law as he was not a competent authority to issue such notice after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of section 151 and therefore the entire proceedings initiated through notice dated 15.2.2001 is void, ab initio and consequently the entire assessment deserves to be quashed. 2. Because in any case at the time of issuance of notice under Section 148, the Income Tax Officer, Mau, did not have jurisdiction in the case of the assessee, as no su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of residential house and Nursing Home were admitted to the assessee at all times and that investment has not been disclosed by the assesse by filing its return of income except that filed for assessment year 1993-94. Thus, the assese had not disclosed the investment in such constructions. So far as the cross-objection filed by the assessee is concerned the Tribunal has noted as below:- "8. In all the cross-objections, the assessee took a plea that the Assessing Officer was not competent to issue the notice after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment year as per the provision contained in section 151(2). 9. After hearing both the parties it appears that section 151 was amended with effect from 1.4.1990 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee but the same had not been disclosed by the assessee as he had not filed his returns. Thus the assessee had not disclosed to the revenue investment made by it in those properties and had thus not disclosed its corresponding income from which he made those investments. This material itself constitutes relevant information germane to the belief of escapement. The exact quantum of income that may have escaped assessment, in such a case, would always have to be a matter of estimation for which purpose the assessing officer may be required to make a reference to the DVO and rely on his report for making his estimate of escaped income. The judgment in the case of Dhariya Construction (Supra) does not help the assessee being distin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so far as it has upheld the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. Accordingly, question nos. 'A' and 'B' raised in the memo of appeal are decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. As far as the issue of cross-objection is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee has taken us through the cross objection filed by the assessee before the Tribunal raising three grounds. While the Tribunal in its order in paragraphs 8 and 9 (as quoted above) as dealt with ground no.1 raised in the cross-objection. There is no discussion to the other two grounds. Clearly the assessee appears to have either given up or not pressed ground nos. 2.1 and 2.2 raised in his cross-objection. We also find that neither assessee file....