9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20th Aug, 1979, recorded the following reason: "The original assessment was completed u/s 143(1) does not show the capital gain earned on the sale of the truck (RJR 8517) to Shri Rattan Kumar Modhwani for Rs. 21,000 + 12,000 parts = Rs. 33,000. Moreover the assessee invested Rs. 95,000 on 15th March, 1975 in a new truck which has not been explained by the assessee in the original return, since no explanatory letter or capital account or balance sheet has been filed. Since I have reason to believe that by reason of omission of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessment is therefore reopened u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and, therefore, no action could have been taken u/s 147(b). He argues that simply because the ITO came to know at a subsequent stage that the assessee had sold a truck and that he made the investment of Rs. 95,000 in the purchase of a new truck, no action could be validly taken u/sub-s (b) of s. 147 by the ITO. Adverting to s. 147 Shri Sharma says that there must be definite information with the ITO that some income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Merely because a truck was sold by the assessee during the previous year and he invested a sum of Rs. 95,000 in the purchase of a new stuck, Shri Sharma says that the ITO could not have legally inferred that any capital gain arose from the sale of the truck and that the investment made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rical finding of AAC, the only question for consideration is whether re-opening is sustainable u/cl (b) of s. 147. Shri Swarup, ld. Senior Deptl. Rep. argued in support of the proposition that proceedings had been validly initiated u/cl (b). He says that there was sufficient information with the ITO that a truck had been sold by the assessee and a new truck had been purchased. His argument is that this information was sufficient for the ITO to take action u/cl (b) and from such facts the ITO would have believed that when there was a sale, some capital gain would have arisen. Such argument of the revenue seems to be wholly unfounded. Mere information of the fact that the assessee had sold a truck during the previous year relevant to the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
