9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the reopening of the assessment was based on information from the Tribunal's order. 3. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had passed an order. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment under Section 147(b) The primary issue was whether the reassessment made by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68 was valid. The court held that the conditions precedent for invoking section 147(b) were not satisfied. Specifically, the ITO must have "information" that leads him to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court emphasized that a mere change of opinion on the same set of materials does not constitute "information" under section 147(b). The court cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions to support this interpretation, including CIT v. A. Raman and Co. and Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT. The court concluded that the ITO's action was based on a mere change of opinion rather than new information, rendering the reassessment invalid. Issue 2: Reopening of Assessment Based on Tribunal's Order The second issue was whether the reopening of the assessment by the ITO was based on information from the Tribunal's order dated November 30, 1970. The court found that the Tribunal had already considered the question of export profit rebate multiple times, and there was no new information that came into the possession of the ITO after the original assessment. The court held that the reopening of the assessment was not based on any new information but was merely a change of opinion by the successor ITO. Therefore, the court found the Tribunal's finding that the reopening was not based on information from its order to be reasonable and not perverse. Issue 3: Competence to Reopen Assessment After AAC's Order The third issue was whether the ITO could reopen the assessment after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had passed an order disposing of the appeal. The court noted that the AAC had already passed an order allowing the export profit rebate, and it was not legally competent for the ITO to subsequently reopen the assessment and recall the relief granted by the AAC. Given the conclusions on the first two issues, the court found it unnecessary to answer this question. Conclusion: The court answered the first question in the affirmative, against the department and in favor of the assessee, and the second question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the department. The third question was deemed unnecessary to answer. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with each party bearing its own costs.
|
