Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  all the authorities had concurrently found that there was non-disclosure, omission and failure on the part of the assessee to make returns regarding the items covered under the Act in the returns as filed on the basis of which assessment was done by the Assessing Officer. Under section 11 of the Act, if the case was covered under clause (a) the question of reassessment being barred by limitation would not arise. It was only if the case was covered under clause (b) of section 11 of the Act, that the limitation of four years from the end of the assessment year had been specified by law. The concurrent finding of fact was that it was a case of omission and failure of the assessee to disclose the liability to pay expenditure-tax in respect of chargeable expenditure for the relevant period. On this finding the case would be clearly covered by clause (a) of section 11 of the Act. As a concomitant of that finding, the reassessment by the Assessing Officer in terms of notice served on the assessee could not be barred by limitation. On merit the Court held that  the court could not reappreciate the evidence to record a different finding of fact even if another view was possible on the basis of the material on record. (AY. 1994-1995 to 1996-1997 )