P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) SUBSTANTIAL question of law : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in spite of order of the assessment as well as of the open for the Revenue to rely on the provisions of s. 142A on the ground that it would apply to the present case because the assessment has not become final and conclusive." then existed. Obviously, the time permissible for taking action under s. 143(1)(a) had expired. It appears that the assessment for the earlier year, being 1993 -94 was also completed.
(2.) IT is only after the expiry of the time permissible for that date, though after the expiry of the time permissible for issuance of notice under ss. 143(2) and 143(3), the AO had shown in the return was not correct, and treated it to be escapement of income.
(3.) JAMES Joseph O' Gorman (1993) 204 ITR 454 (Cal), so also the judgments of this Court in CIT vs. Pratap Singh, Amroo Singh, Rajendra Singh & Deepak Kumar (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj), CIT vs. Smt. Prem Kumari Surana (1994) 206 ITR 715 (Raj), Sardar Kehar Singh vs. CIT (1992) 92 CTR (Raj) 88 and the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Dinkarrai Anantrai Mankad vs. ITO (1985) 155 ITR 406 (Guj). In appeal, the learned Tribunal upheld the same. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue, that s. 131(1)(d), as it then existed, confers the power on the AO to obtain the valuation report, and for that purpose, it is not necessary, that when the valuation report has been obtained, any assessment proceeding should be pending. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue is, that in any case, these proceedings under ss. 147 and 148, culminating into the impugned order of the Tribunal, should also be taken to be the continuation of the original assessment proceedings, with the result, that even for the purpose of s. 131(1)(d), the assessment proceedings were pending and, therefore, the report could very well be had. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment.;