1984 (2) TMI 188 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961
2. Reassessment based on undisclosed investments in property
3. Legal objection regarding reassessment jurisdiction
4. Obligation to disclose investment in constructions
5. Reassessment under section 147(b) based on subsequent information

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961:
The Tribunal declined to draw up a statement of the case and refer a common question to the High Court regarding the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal held that no question of law arose from the order, thus refusing to refer the matter to the High Court.

2. Reassessment based on undisclosed investments in property:
The Assessing Officer made additions in reassessment orders for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76, alleging unexplained investments in property. The CIT (A) canceled the reassessment orders, stating that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.

3. Legal objection regarding reassessment jurisdiction:
The CIT (A) accepted the legal objection raised by the assessee, stating that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction under section 147(a) to make reassessments as no income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

4. Obligation to disclose investment in constructions:
The Tribunal noted that there was no obligation for the assessee to disclose the investment made in constructions during the relevant years. It was observed that all material facts necessary for assessment were before the Assessing Officer, and the non-disclosure of investment in constructions did not constitute an omission or failure on the part of the assessee.

5. Reassessment under section 147(b) based on subsequent information:
The Tribunal considered the Revenue's plea for reassessment under section 147(b) but concluded that no reassessment could be made under this provision as there was no subsequent information within the meaning of the clause. The Tribunal held that the information regarding the property's valuation was already under consideration during the original assessments, and thus, there was no subsequent information justifying reassessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, emphasizing that no referable question of law arose from the issues discussed in the judgment.