9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - In this appeal by special leave the department-appellant prays that this court may be pleased to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench " B ", to state a case and submit the three questions of law set out in the special leave application. But, at the time of hearing, Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the department, informed us that he is pressing the appeal only in respect of one question of law and that question is : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was competent to rectify its order dated 29th April, 1966, in respect of the assessment year 1960-61, in regard to the sum of Rs. 1,65,718, being the amount paid by the assessee as consultation fees ?" We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no evidence to show that the sum of Rs. 6,000 paid as pension, was expended or laid out exclusively for the purpose of the business. So far as the second item is concerned, he came to the conclusion that it was a capital expenditure. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, proposing to reopen the previous year's assessment. After overruling the objections of the assessee the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment and reassessed the assessee after disallowing the claim of Rs. 6,000 as well as of Rs. 1,65,718 which he had allowed earlier. The assessee appealed against that order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sum of Rs. 60,000 had escaped assessment. It noted that the assessee did not place any material before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the assessment to show that the said sum of Rs. 6,000 was expended or laid out exclusively for the purpose of business and he received additional information on that point during the succeeding year's assessment from which he could have had reason to believe that the said sum escaped assessment. Hence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notice under section 147(b), in that regard, is a valid notice. Now, coming to the deduction of Rs. 1,65,718 paid to the Swiss firm as consultation fees, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that all the necessary facts had been placed before the Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marked more than once that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment in regard to the deduction of the amount paid to the Swis firm but those observations were made while considering whether a notice under section 147(b) could have been given in respect of that allowance. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that its final conclusion was that, though a notice under section 147(b) would have been invalid if the only question was whether the sum paid to the Swiss firm was a permissible allowance but the said notice has to be considered as valid in its entirety, as it was valid in respect of the deduction of the payment of pension. It appears to us that the view taken by the Tribunal at that stage was that if not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
