TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s completed under section 143(3) of the Act on January 24, 1985, on the returned income of Rs. 14,920. Thereafter some information was received from the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated March 18, 1991, under section 148 of the Act after obtaining necessary sanction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. In response to this notice, return was filed declaring an income of Rs. 14,917 on May 21, 1991. The Assessing Officer made reassessment under section 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 11,37,060 vide order dated March 29, 1993. This order along with the demand notice was served by affixture as the service could not be made in the ordinary course. Aggrieved by the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the assessment order having been passed under section 143(3) of the Act subsequent on the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act being non est and void ab initio? (c) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders annexures P1, P2 and P3 are legally unsustainable inasmuch as the assessment having been framed subsequent to the period of limitation and thus being beyond limitation? (d) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sustaining of addition of Rs. 38,000 is legally sustainable, the same being based on mere surmises and conjectures which cannot form the basis for adjudication? (e) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 15,000 is legally unsustainabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... indicating the income and assets belonging to the assessee which had not been shown in her return. The contents of this information have duly been incorporated in the orders of the lower authorities. It has also been found that the assessee had not disclosed the assets mentioned therein in the original return filed by her. The correctness of the information in the communication from the Central Bureau of Investigation is not even in dispute at least in respect of some of the investments as the assessee has tried to explain the same by relating them to some alleged loans/gifts. It is, therefore, evident that the Assessing Officer had received definite information from the Central Bureau of Investigation about the investments made by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 147, the initiation of proceedings is valid. Prior to its amendment on April 1, 1989, the section stood as under: "If-- (a) the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Assessing Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued, the assessment has to be completed under section 147 and not under section 143(3). This contention is totally devoid of any merit. It has been rightly pointed out by the Tribunal that once a return in pursuance to notice under section 148 is filed, the "provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139." The position was the same even prior to the amendment of section 148 with effect from April 1, 1989. The unamended provision also provided that on issue of a notice under section 148 "the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if a notice were a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 139". Thus, it is ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted on March 29, 1993. The order along with the demand notice had been sent for service on the same day, but it was reported by the notice server that the assessee had refused to receive the same. The Assessing Officer, therefore, ordered the service through affixture for which purpose he deputed his inspector. The inspector served the notice through affixture on March 30, 1993, and submitted his report to the Assessing Officer. Thus, it is evident that the assessment had duly been framed on March 29, 1993, within the period of limitation. It appears that in the present case the assessee has been trying to evade service of notice so as to take the plea of limitation at a subsequent stage. The inspector, who served the order and demand not....