JUDGMENT This is appeal filed by assessee under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961, against order dated August 3, 2001, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 44/Ind./96. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, there could be recourse to provisions of section 147/148 of Incometax Act for reassessing income of assessee by including Rs. 2,74,627? 2. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, reopening of assessment was barred by time under proviso to section 147 of Act? Heard Shri K. N. Puntambekar, learned counsel for appellant and Shri A. P. Patankar, learned counsel for respondent. In short and in substance, question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: whether issuance of notice under section 147/148 of Act, seeking to reopen assessment for making reassessment for assess ment year in question (1982-83) is legally justified, or not? All authorities below, i.e., Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal have upheld notice and in consequence reassessment proceedings. This is what Tribunal held in paragraph 5 of impugned order while upholding notice and reassessment by negativing challenge of assessee: Paragraph 5. We have considered rival contentions carefully. We have also perused various orders passed by different authorities and judgments relied on by parties. We find force in contentions of learned Departmental representative. case is very simple. Cash was seized from assessee on which assessee has taken different stands at different points of time. As case relied on by learned authorised representative of assessee as well as commentary relied upon by him relate to old provisions of section 147, new section which was amended with effect from April 1, 1989, gives wide powers to Assessing Officer. Most important requirement is that Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and in case of orders under section 143(3) assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years provided assessee has made all disclosures. From facts discussed above, it is very clear that assessee has not made full disclosure. In this regard, we are also supported by following cases Ram Prasad v. ITO [1995] 82 Taxman 199. In this case, on page 205, Allahabad High Court has observed as under: Now, term escaped assessment includes both non-assessment as well as underassessment. When person, though liable to be taxed, has not been assessed to tax, there is escapement. Further, although same person may be taxed both as individual and as karta of Hindu undivided family, two capacities are intrinsically different units of taxation under Act. They are treated as different assessees for purposes of Act. Revenue authorities are not precluded from taking appropriate proceedings or to issue notice for reassessment to another, merely because that income has been assessed in hands of individual if there is material to show that it is former and not latter that should have been assessed under law. reason is not too far to seek. scheme of Act contemplates assessment in hands of assessee who in law is assessable in respect of that income. If some one otherwise volunteers for assessment, that may be of no consequence nor will it forestall making of assessment against per son legally liable to pay tax in respect of that income. argument that as same income has been assessed as protective measure in hands of Ram Prasad, individual, and, thus, no notice under section 148 could be issued to assess that income in hands of Ram Prasad (HUF), is stated to be rejected. invalidity of impugned notices cannot be upheld on contention under discussion which is hereby rejected by saying that assessment of income in wrong hands would not preclude Assessing Officer to initiate appropriate proceedings in hands of person who, in law, may be liable to be taxed in respect of that income. Same view has been taken by Calcutta High Court in Rajinder Mohan Bhandari v. ITO [1978] 111 ITR 407 and by Kerala High Court in Mrs. Gladys S. Koder v. ITO [1976] 104 ITR 220. In view of these circumstances, we uphold order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). So far as facts of case are concerned, Tribunal took note of them in relation to issuance of notice in paragraph 2 as follows: Paragraph 2. Keeping all these circumstances in view, notice under section 148 for assessment year 1982-83 was issued on March 16, 1993, against which assessee filed nil return with note that assessee has already filed returns from assessment years 1975-76 to 1984-85 and income of Rs. 28,500 had been assessed for assessment year 1982-83 on substantive basis and Rs. 2,67,627 was assessed on protective basis for this year. As Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had already deleted addition of Rs. 2,67,627, income of Rs. 28,500 shall be accepted as such. After some adjournment on March 2, 1995, Shri Amritlal Jain appeared on behalf of assessee and requested to supply reasons for reopening assessment, which were made available to him and counsel of assessee read same. He further submitted that issue has been finally decided by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal orders in I. T. A. Nos. 788 and 817 dated August 12, 1992. He further submitted that this sum of Rs. 2,67,627 was accumulated income of assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83. Therefore, same shall not be added to income of assessee again. Assessing Officer did not find explanation satisfactory. He further found that during assessment proceedings for assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83 assessee was asked to produce books of account and other records to prove that, he had really earned that income but had failed to produce any documentary evidence. Assessing Officer also found that assessee had filed voluntary returns in his individual capacity just to save himself from litigation and had declared bogus income for various years which has not been established. Had assessee been really earning some income then assessee would have definitely filed returns for other years also. Ultimately sum of Rs. 3,03,127 (being cash seized by Department Rs. 2,67,627 from car, Rs. 7,000 from person and Rs. 28,500 which was declared by assessee) was assessed in hands of assessee in his individual capacity. On aforesaid facts and finding of Tribunal, question is; whether this court can hold that impugned notice under section 147/ 148 is bad in law either on facts or in law? We do not find it to be so on facts found and finding recorded by Tribunal in paragraph 5, quoted supra. Here is case where true disclosure of assets/income was not made by assessee and hence, notice could be issued. Reasons were shown to assessee and he replied. These facts are not in dispute as is clear from narration of facts mentioned supra. In these circumstances in our opinion, authorities below were justified once they record their dissatisfaction to explanation offered by assessee in upholding notice and reassessment. Indeed, power to reopen concluded assessment by taking recourse to twin provisions, namely, section 147/148 ibid cannot be challenged by assessee except on very limited grounds known to law. In our considered view, none of those grounds could be noticed so as to hold in favour of assessee. No doubt, placing reliance on several authorities such as CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh [1965] 56 ITR 234 (SC); CIT v. H. Holck Larsen [1972] 85 ITR 467 (Bom); Hum Boldt Wedag India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 845 (Cal); and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC), learned counsel for appellant made attempt to assail impugned notice but, in our view, we cannot accept his submission. Law laid down in these cases is distinguishable on facts of this case and hence, these decisions with respect have no application. First facts and then authorities. In view of aforesaid discussion, we concur with finding of Tribunal and in consequence find no merit in appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. *** DHANYA KUMAR JAIN v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX