9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reopening of assessments under section 147(b) for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68 based on rental income discrepancy and municipal assessment. Analysis: The Tribunal referred the question of law regarding the correctness of reopening assessments under section 147(b) for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68. The assessments were initially completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The basis for reopening was a rental income issue where a portion of a property was let out at a different rate than the municipal assessment. The assessee contended that the assessments could not be reopened under section 147(b, which was rejected by the lower authorities. Additionally, penal proceedings were initiated for alleged income concealment. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the refund of the penalty. In analyzing the facts leading to the original assessment orders, it was revealed that the assessee had provided details of rents received and municipal property values in the return. The rent received from the property in question was disclosed, including details of the tenant, the Deputy Director of Agriculture. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had these details during the assessment but chose to base the assessment on the municipal value, despite being aware of the rental income details. The Tribunal found that the ITO had received information about the rental income during the original assessment process, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. As per the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. A. Raman & Co., "information" under section 147(b) must be derived from an external source after the original assessment, which was not the case here. The ITO's awareness of the rental income at the time of the original assessment precluded the reopening under section 147(b. The Court concluded that the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to reopen the assessments under section 147(b) as there was no new information that came to light after the original assessment. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the assessments for the years in question should not have been reopened. Consequently, the question was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee, who was also awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200.
|
