- (1.) SINCE common issues are involved in both these appeals, therefore, both the appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) IN these appeals, following questions are proposed to be admitted, being questions of law : (A) Whether the notice under Section 148 of IT Act issued on 6th Nov., 2000, by registered post as mentioned in the assessment order, i.e., after 4 years from the close of assessment year which is time -barred and thus entire assessment proceedings and impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside ? (B) Whether it is not a case of de novo assessment and same is recomputation of income under the different head ? (C) Whether Tribunal vide its order dt. 21st Jan., 1997, has merely issued direction without setting aside the assessment ? (D) Whether the impugned orders are perverse and same deserve to be quashed and set aside ? (E) Whether the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was against the ratio of the judgment in case of CIT v. A.R. Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2002) 27 Tax World 291 (Raj) ? (F) Whether the notice under Section 148 was issued for the same reason on which the case of the appellant was set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dt. 21st Jan., 1997, in ITA Nos. 889 and 890/Jp/1993 and as such the notice issued under Section 148 is not a valid notice ? (G) Whether the case covered under Section 153(2A) was treated as simple direction under Section 153(3) of the IT Act when the assessment as per order of the CIT(A) in case of country liquor, assessed as per deeming provisions of Section 44AC was cancelled by the Tribunal vide order dt. 21st Jan., 1997, and, therefore, the assessment framed under Section 253/143(3), dt. 25th Feb., 2002, after more than 4 years is barred by limitation ? (H) Whether the assessment by taxing the profit of country liquor business is to be assessed by adopting the profit of country liquor as per the deeming provisions of Section 44AC of the IT Act ? (I) Whether the orders passed by the Tribunal, dt. 21st Sept., 2004, order dt. 3rd June, 2003, passed by CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1990 -91 and 1991 -92 and assessment orders are perverse and contrary to the provisions of law and deserve to be quashed and set aside ? (J) Whether the impugned orders which have been passed without considering the submissions made by the appellant are liable to be quashed and set aside ? (K) Whether the notice issued by the assessing authority under Section 148 of the IT Act at unknown address of the service of which is not proved and which has been issued in avoidance (sic) of the first appellate authority for the reason for which the Tribunal has already passed order dt. 21st Jan., 1997, is not valid notice ? The basic issue involved in these questions is whether the assessment has been made in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 in the present proceedings.
(3.) CIT (A) has considered this aspect in para 4 of his order, which has been affirmed by the learned Tribunal in its order. For ready reference that reads as under : I have carefully considered the rival submissions. As regards the first ground of issue of notice under Section 148 is concerned, the present proceedings have got no relation with the issue of such notice. The present proceedings are as a result of order passed under Section 143(3) Read with Secction. 253 of the IT Act, 1961, in furtherance to comply with the direction given by the Tribunal in the abovementioned appeal orders. Since the present assessments have not been made in consequence to the notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, hence the grounds of appeal and the argument of the learned Authorised Representative on this issue cannot be sustained. As far as the jurisdiction of the present AO over the case of the appellant is concerned, this is covered by the provisions of Section 124(3) of the IT Act. The appellant has not raised any objection before the learned AO against the proceedings before him and against the issue of notice under Sections. 142 and 143(2). Therefore, such notices cannot be challenged after the lapse of one month from the date of service of the notice. As regards the address of the appellant is concerned, none was available at the old address and since the address of the appellant was C/o Mehta & Co., who had also changed the office at the new address at Ghittiranjan Marg, C -Scheme, Jaipur, without any intimation to the AO, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned AO. Thus, the above ground of appeal too fails.;