The appellant was a power of attorney holder for two assessees, who were sisters. The sisters were involved in a dispute relating to an immovable property in the State of Goa .  In  relation to AY. 1999-2000, notices under s. 148 of the Act  were issued to the assessees, seeking to reopen the assessment, inter alia, on the ground that the amount was taxable “capital gains”. These notices were accompanied by reasons for reopening, in which, it was stated that the power of attorney holder was proposed to be treated as the agent of the assessees as provided in section 163. This was, however, followed by another communication dated June 21, 2005 in which the Assessing Officer clarified that the notices under section 148, dated March 14, 2005 may be read as being served upon M as the power of attorney holder. Subsequently the Assessing Officer made an assessment order, bringing to tax the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores as capital gains. This was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal the Court held that from the clarification contained in the communication dated June 21, 2006, it was apparent that the notice issued to P.P .Mahtame  was not in his capacity as the agent of the non-resident assessee, but it was issued to him as the power of attorney holder of the non-resident assessee. In such a situation, the period of limitation for issuance of the notice was always 6 years. Therefore, the notice dated March 14, 2005 being within 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which was 1999-2000, was well within the period of limitation, as then prevalent. Accordingly the reassessment notice is held to be valid .  Court also held that dispute settled and consent decree passed. There being  no family settlement ,consideration is held to be taxable as capital gains .  (ITA Nos , 3,4, 9 &10of 2012 dt 8 -11-2019  (AY. 1999-2000)