KAMALJIT Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE return, filed by the appellant -assessee, had not yet culminated into an assessment order, when the AO, issued a notice under s. 148, inter alia, stating that the deposits made in the banks and the properties purchased by the assessee referred to in the notice gave rise to reasons that income invested in the same had escaped assessment. Pursuant to the said notice, the AO concluded the assessment proceedings and found that an income of Rs. 18,94,490 had indeed escaped assessment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant went up in appeal before the CIT(A), who reduced the amount that escaped assessment to Rs. 13,82,032. In a further appeal before the Tribunal, the said amount was further

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellants preferred ITA No. 463/2003 before this Court, which that appeal was that the AO could not take recourse to the provisions of s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, because the proceedings before the AO had not terminated as on the date of the issue of the notice under that provision. This Court, however, repelled that contention relying upon the provisions of s. 147, Expln. 2(b) of the IT Act and a Division Bench decision in CIT vs. S.R. Fragrances Ltd. (2004) 187 CTR (Del) 4 : (2004) 270 ITR 560 (Del).

(3.) MR . Manjani, submits that the appellant has taken recourse to the remedy by way of an appeal before the Supreme decision of this Court in Deeksha Suri & Ors. vs. ITAT (1998) 146 CTR (Del) 576 : (1998) 232 ITR 395 (Del), Karan & Co. vs. ITAT (2001) 169 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 253 ITR 131 (Del) and CIT vs. Vichtra Construction (P) Ltd. (2004) 191 CTR (Del) 423 : (2004) 269 ITR 371 (Del), dismissed the said application holding that the appellant was in substance, Act. The present appeal before us is directed against the said order of the Tribunal.