JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

Heard Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar with Mr. Purushottam Karpe for the Appellant and Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal was on board for final hearing, along with Tax Appeals No.3/2012, 9/2012 and 10/2012. All these appeals involve identical issues of both, law and fact. However, the learned Counsel for the parties requested that this Appeal be treated as the lead Appeal. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that the decision in this Appeal will govern the fate of the remaining three appeals, as well.

3. This Appeal was admitted on 13.2.2012, on the following substantial questions of law :

i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding on a perverse view that the change of position by mere clarification by the Assessing Officer regarding status of the assessee, which is contrary to the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) and rule of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court could give jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice under Section 148, which is otherwise barred by limitation?

ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribuna