CIT Vs. ARIHANT BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 15-3-2004, with respect to two different assessment years being 1994-95 and 1995-96, and have been admitted on 11-4-2005, by framing following substantial question of law:

(2.) The necessary facts are, that the assessee filed return for the two assessment years on 17-7-1995 and 20-7-1995 respectively, along with the requisite information. However, no action was taken under Section 143(1)(a), as it then existed. Obviously, the time permissible for taking action under Section 143(1)(a) had expired. It appears that the assessment for the earlier year, being 1993-94 was also completed. It is only after the expiry of the time permissible for issuance of notice under Sections 143(2) and 143(3), that the assessing officer issued notice under Section 148 on 161-0-1996, as before that date, though after the expiry of the time permissible for issuance of notice under Sections 143(2) and 143(3), the assessing officer had received valuation report prepared by the Departmental Valuation Officer dated 20-5-1995, according to which, the assessing officer felt, that the income shown in the return was not correct, and treated it to be escapement of income.

(3.) The assessee filed a reply thereto, and the assessing officer made assessment vide order dated 31-3-1999, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 21-9-1999, mainly relying upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in 1TO v. James Joseph O Gorman,, so also the judgments of this Court in CIT v. Pratap Singh Amroo Singh Rajendra Singh & Deepak Kumar,, CIT v. Smt Prem Kumari Surana,, Sardar Kehar Singh v. CIT,1992 92 CTR (Raj) 88 and the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Dinkarrat Anantrai Mankad v. ITO,. In appeal, the learned Tribunal upheld the same.