2017 (3) TMI 1264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0.07.2008 in departmental appeals no. 193 to 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(Appeals) on the ground that the reassessment proceedings had been validly 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, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was material before the Assessing Officer to initiate the assessment proceedings inasmuch as the construction 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 sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, each case turns on its own facts. It is not disputed that the construction of another residential house and Nursing Home had been made 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come, the assessee having not filed its returns of income for the years in which such investment was made. The Tribunal was not in error in 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 assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rther scope to give any relief. Hence, we uphold the order of CIT(A) who has given the partial relief and sustained the addition of Rs. 6,70,441/- as unexplained investment in the building especially when department is not in cross objections against this relief. Thus, all the grounds pertaining to this addition for all the Assessment Years under consideration, are dismissed." We find essentially the issue raised in question no. 'C' is a question of fact on which the Tribunal has recorded its finding after due appraisal of the evidence and material existing on record. In view of the above, the finding of the Tribunal sustaining the part of Rs. 6,76,441/- does not suffer from any infirmity. The question is answered accordingly. ....