Per G. Santhanam, Accountant Member - The appeals are by the assessee and the revenue and the cross objection is by the assessee. As common issues are involved a consolidated order is, passed for the sake of convenience.

2. The assessee is mainly a cashew exporter, but had business in foreign liquor and toddy besides deriving share income from a few firms. The previous year is the financial year ending on 31-3-1981 relevant to the assessment year 1981-82. The return of income was filed on 3-11-1983 admitting a loss of Rs. 58,216 for the relevant previous year. The total loss returned in the return was at Rs. 11,53,920. As a result of the failure of the assessee to comply with the requirements of the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 of the I.T. Act on 12-9-1984. The notice of demand along with the assessment order was served on the assessee's advocate. On the basis of a petition dated 15-9-1984 filed by the assessee's advocate, the ex parte assessment was cancelled under section 146 on 24-9-1984 and the fresh assessment was completed on 27-3-1987 making certain additions and disallowances as follows :

Thus against the income initially assessed under section 144 at Rs. 2,16,336 the income that was finally determined upon cancellation of the ex parte assessment came to Rs. 23,28,394. The assessee appealed against the additions and disallowances to the CIT (Appeals) without much success. The assessee is on second appeal. The revenue is on appeal against the relief granted by the CIT (Appeals) and the cross objection of the assessee is on the question of limitation.

3. After presentation of the appeal by the assessee against the merits of additions and disallowances sustained by the CIT (Appeals) for the impugned assessment year, the assessee had filed an additional ground of appeal on 5-8-1991 as follows:

"Additional grounds of appeal:

1. The assessment order passed by the learned Income-tax Officer on 27-3-1987 is without jurisdiction.

2. The learned Income-tax Officer ought to have found that the so-called best judgment assessment said to have been made by him under section 144 on 12-9-1984 has not been set aside. The Advocate has no authority to present a petition under section 146. Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal maybe pleased to call for the assessment records and verify the authorisation of the Advocate and the petition under section 146."

Another set of additional grounds were preferred on 5-9-1991 as follows:

"1. The Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to make this impugned assessment. The ex parte assessment under section 144 has not been set aside. The assessee has admittedly as is evident from Department records filed any application under section 146 to set aside the assessment. The Advocate who presented the application has no authority under the Vakkalath given to him in the light of section 288 and section 146 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. In any event this being a fresh assessment under section 146 of the I.T. Act read with section 143 the Income-tax Officer has no power to make any additions in excess of the Income a