9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the allowance of a fresh claim of loss in reassessment proceedings. - Whether a claim not made in the original assessment can be considered in reassessment proceedings without resulting in an escapement of income. Analysis: The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Department regarding the interpretation of section 32(1) in reassessment proceedings. The Department contended that the Tribunal should have referred a question of law concerning the allowance of a fresh claim of loss under section 32(1) not made in the original assessment. The assessments for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were reopened under section 147(a) as the Income-tax Officer believed that the assessee's taxable income had escaped assessment. In the reassessment, the assessee made a claim for loss under section 32(1) which was not raised in the original assessment. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, but the Tribunal allowed it based on precedent, specifically citing the case of New Kaiser-Hind Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. The assessee argued that the issue was covered by the court's judgment and emphasized the need for a fresh assessment in reassessment proceedings. The court considered the conflicting interpretations presented by the parties. The assessee relied on the judgment in New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT and the Full Bench judgment in CIT v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. The court noted that reassessment is akin to a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to make claims not raised during the original assessment. On the other hand, the Revenue cited the judgment in CWT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. to support its position that reassessment does not permit the assessee to seek recomputation of wealth or redo the assessment. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive reassessment under section 147, aligning with the view that reassessment is essentially a fresh assessment. Ultimately, the court held that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee based on the precedent established in prior judgments. The court found no need to direct the Tribunal to refer the question as a matter of law, as the issue had already been conclusively addressed. Consequently, the rule was discharged, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
