We have now to sec whether the dealers who come within the mischief of s. 11 (4)(a) can also be dealt with under s. llA. Before a person can be dealt with under s. llA, it must be shown that in consequence of any information which has come into his possession, lhe Commissioner is satisfied that any turnover of that dealer during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom. Quite plainly the expression 'dealer' in B s. l!A(I) includes both registered and unregistered dealers. In this case we are concerned with the escapement of assessment. Therefure the first question that arises for decision is whether it can bll said that the appellants' turnovers for the period 1-5-52 to 30-10-55 had escaped assessment. There is no dispute that those turnovers lwd not been assessed. From the fact that those turnovers had not been asscsed. can it 1'c said that they had escaped assessment? In Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of fl!come Tax, liilwr and Orissa.('), this Court laid down that the expression "has escaned assessment" in s. 34(l)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act. I 92i is applicable not only where the income has not been assessed owing to inadvertence or oversight or owing to the fact that no D return has been submitted. but also where a return has been submitted but the inco111c tax 0fliccr erroneously failed to tax a part L>I' ib,cssablc income. In Com111issio11<'1" of lllcome Ta.r, Bombay City v. MI s. N11rs1•e Nagsec and Co., Bombay!") interpreting the words ··profits escaping assessment" ins. 14 of the Business Profits Ta.\ Act, 1947, this Court held that those words apply equally to cases where a notice was received by the assessee but resulted in no assc;sment. under-assessment or excessive relief ttnd to cases wl1erc due to any rca,on no notice was issued tn the assessce and there was l1ll assessment of his income. Kapur, J. speaking for the majority of Judges in that t:ase, observed (at p. 993 of the report) that it is well-settled thul an income escapes assessment when the process F of assessment has not been initiated as also in a case where it has resulted in no assessment after the completion of the process of assessment. The true scope of the expression "escaped assessment" in s. 11 A came up for cons.ideration before this Court in Glumshvam Das v. Regional Assistant Commissio11e1· of Sales Tax, NagprO. This is what Subba Rao . .I. (as he then was) who delivered the G .iudgment of the majority of the Judges. observed in that regard:
