Ashok Kumar, J. - (1.) This is an Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee, against the order dated 8.12.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 467/LUC/2005 for the assessment year 1993-94, is challenged.
(2.) Following questions of law have been framed by the assessee: 1. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that, on the basis of prima facie illegal and admittedly beyond jurisdiction order u/s 154/254 dated 21.5.01 for the AY 1992-93 as well as on the allegation, without any basis, for excess allowance of depreciation for Rs.29400.00, the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were rightly initiated & pursuant to that reassessment was rightly made. 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the reassessment under Section 143(3) /148, when no mandatory notice u/s 143(2) for making such assessment was issued & served. 3. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the ratio of the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Anil Gupta 96 TTJ 798 is not applicable to the facts of the case & as such proceedings for reassessment u/s 147 were rightly initiated as well as the reassessment order u/s 143(3)/148 dated 27.2.03 was rightly passed. 4. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the reassessment u/s 143(3)/148 when it itself has quashed the consequential reassessment orders for the preceding & succeeding assessment years by the same common order. 5. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not considering that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated merely on change of opinion vide reasons dated 29.5.01, because as per notice u/s 154/254 dated 21.5.01 for 25.5.01 pending for disposal, the assessment was vide open. 6. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3)/148, for the non compliance of the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act 1961, in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 144 of the IT Act 1961."
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the assessee Sri V.K. Rastogi and Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the department assisted by Sri Swapnil Rastogi, Advocate.;