9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Allowability of deduction u/s 80M and computation of relief u/s 80J of the Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT (Appeals) allowing the appeal against the order of the ITO for the assessment years 1972-73. The assessee, a company, challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147(b) of the Act and the computation of relief u/s 80J. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal on grounds other than the reopening issue, stating that there were only two adverse points prompting the reopening, both of which were allowed. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the ITO failed to specify whether the reopening was under section 147(a) or 147(b) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the reopening was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion rather than information from an external source, as required by section 147(b). Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) order and dismissed the revenue's appeal without delving into the merits of the case. 2. The revenue contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in deciding the case on merits without addressing the preliminary issue. The revenue argued that recent amendments affected the decision on the relief under sections 80M, 80AAC, and 80J of the Act. Conversely, the assessee's counsel supported the CIT (Appeals) order. The Tribunal found that since the reopening of the assessment was deemed invalid, there was no need to analyze the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue, confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this basis. The judgment emphasized that the reopening was not valid, making it unnecessary to delve into the substantive issues raised by the parties. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) order, dismissing the revenue's appeal due to the invalidity of the reopening of assessment under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural flaw in the reopening process, rendering the merits of the case irrelevant for consideration.
|
