TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of section 132(1) of the Act on March 21, 1990. During the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating documents were found at these premises. An order was later passed under section 132(5) of the Act on July 13, 1990. Notice under section 148 was issued to the petitioner on April 30, 1991, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90 because the petitioner by that time had not filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner filed his return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 on May 15, 1991, declaring total income of Rs. 18,289. The petitioner then filed a return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1990-91 on March 31, 1992. The assessing author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer when the writ petition was filed but in the meantime the petitioner filed an application under section 245C of the Act on November 14, 1995, in regard to the assessment year 1989-90 for being settled before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission after hearing both the assessee as well as the Revenue by order dated September 30, 1996, held that in view of the complexity of the investigation involved, the application for settlement about the assessment year 1989-90 does not deserve to be proceeded with because the disputed matters have already reached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") which is the final appellate authority on questions of fact and its findings will finally decide the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before this court, in paragraph 8 of which the Tribunal while dealing with the two additions in the income of the petitioner based on the observation made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated October 15, 1993, observed as under: "8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused the material available on record and the case law relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative. We find that the addition of Rs. 11,21,000 was made by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed investment made by the assessee in respect of purchase of front portion of the property, known as 24, Surya Bhawan, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. This addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of seized paper page N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the merits to the fact that it was investment by the assessee in the assessment year 1989-90, is also directed to be reversed. Since the addition cannot be sustained legally in the assessment year 1990-91 in appeal before us, we do not consider it necessary to decide the issue on the merits of the case. However, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to take any action as he may consider appropriate under any of the enabling provisions of the Act. Accordingly, grounds Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee in his appeal and the Revenue's ground on the addition of Rs. 11,21,000 in ground No. 1 stand disposed of." Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue however although supported the judg....