9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of eight months for which the penalty has been levied by the ITO. Hence the present appeal to the Tribunal. 2. Before us, Shri C.N. Ramachandran, the ld. counsel for the appellant did not dispute the factual position that there was a default committed by the appellant for a period of eight months and that there was on reasonable cause for the same. He raised two legal issues. The first one is that in the present case the original assessment was completed by the ITO under s. 143(3) of the Act on 31st March, 1983, that subsequently the ITO issued a notice under s. 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment on 5th Dec., 1984 and completed the reassessment on 25th March, 1985. According to the ld. counsel, when once an assessment is reope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on along with the tax due thereon and not on the entire total income of Rs. 2,70,430, which included the income of the earlier years. 3. Shri V.S. Kandaswamy, the ld. departmental representative submitted that the contentions raised by the ld. counsel for the appellant are entirely new contentions raised for the first time before the Tribunal, that the departmental authorities had no occasion to examine the same and that therefore the appellant should not be allowed to take these pleas at this stage of the appeal. 4. Since the pleas taken by the ld. counsel for the appellant are purely legaly which do not require any further investigation into facts and which can be disposed of on the materials already on record, we are unable to agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued under s. 139(2) of the Act. Section 147 of course is subject to ss. 148 to 153 of the Act. The effect would then be that, when once a notice is issued on the above lines under s. 148 of the Act, the assessee would be called upon to file a fresh return as if it was a return that would have to be filed in response to a notice under s. 139(2) of the Act. That, in turn, would mean that the assessee would be under an obligation to disclose his total income. It would not be open to him to omit any part of his income except under peril of being made subject to the penal provisions of the Act for failure to furnish a full and true disclosure of his income. It would certainly not be open to the assessee to contend that or need only to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO in the course of the original assessment proceedings are wiped out or washed of. At pages 882 and 883 of the reports, their Lordships have set out question Nos. 2 and 4 with reference to which their Lordships explained the true meaning and scope of a reassessment under s. 147(a) of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Jaganmohan Rao vs. CIT (1972) 75 ITR 373 (SC). This decision of the Madras High Court is authority for the legal position that when once an assessment has validly been reopened by a notice under s. 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961 the ITO will have jurisdiction to assess items falling under s. 147(b) also even though the issue of notice under s. 147(c) would be barred by the expiry of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
