TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the years 1976-77 to 1979-80. Briefly the background of the case is that certain lands of the petitioner situated in village Quilla Nau, Tehsil Faridkot, were acquired by the Government for the extension of Faridkot Cantonment and as a result thereof, he was paid certain amount of compensation in the year 1974. Later, he sought a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and still not feeling satisfied with the enhancement ordered by the district judge, he preferred an appeal to this court. This court again enhanced the amount of compensation, vide its judgment dated November 19, 1981. It is the undisputed position that on this amount of compensation, the total interest actually paid to the petitioner as per the requirement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities cannot maintain that any income had escaped assessment as a result of the failure of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly the material facts pertaining to his income. Mr. Jhingan supports this submission of his from certain observations made in T. M. Kousali v. Sixth ITO [1985] 155 ITR 739 (Kar), wherein it has been said that " the Act nowhere provides that the assessee should disclose the fact that legal proceedings had been initiated and were pending before the civil court or High Court when he files his returns or assessment is completed. Hence, the failure to disclose that the assessee's claim for higher compensation under the Land Acquisition Act in the civil court was pending when returns were filed, would not amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned notices have been issued without jurisdiction or without application of mind, the same in normal course should be quashed by this court and the petitioner cannot be made to avail of the long-drawn and tardy remedies under the Act by way of appeal and revision. So it is the admitted position that the fate of the second argument of the learned counsel for the respondent authorities is dependent on the conclusion of this court on the first argument. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel referred to above is concerned, it is no doubt true that the earlier returns were filed by the petitioner except for the year 1975-76 for which no return, as already pointed out, had been filed on behalf of the Hindu undivided family ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt years referred to above. It is next contended by Mr. Ashok Bhan that even if these notices are held to be bad for having been issued under section 147(a) of the Act, yet these may be sustained in the light of section 147(b) read with section 153(3)(ii) of the Act. For this stand of his, he seeks support from T. M. Kousali's case [1985] 155 ITR 739 (Ker) and Addl. CIT v. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 849 (Guj). Mr. Jhingan joins issue even on this aspect of the matter. His submissions briefly are: (i) What is sought to be urged by Mr. Ashok Bhan now is neither pleaded in the written statement nor was it the case of the Department while moving the Commissioner under section 151(2) of the Act; (ii) Section 153(1) and (....