1974 (1) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. Of the notices, three were dated the 25th of March, 1969, and two dated the 1st of May, 1969. It is the case of the assessee that in respect of the said assessment years the assessee had filed its returns of income along with and supported by the audited profit and loss accounts, depreciation statements, various other statements in detail. The assessee claimed under rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with Appendix I, Part I, under item III(ii), 10% depreciation and was allowed the same. According to the assessee this was allowed after consideration of the relevant facts as this had already been allowed since the assessment year 1961-62. Thereafter, the assessments were sought to be re-opened by the aforesa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s this) is not machinery qualifying for that higher rate. Thus income liable to tax has escaped assessment prima facie within the meaning of section 147, Explanation 1(d), in consequence of information in my possession, (I have now ascertained that in the sister concern, M/s. Indo-Swing, C II/I-263/A, the assessee has all along claimed and has been allowed depreciation @ 7% only on identical machinery). Accordingly, I reopen the assessments for 64/65 to 66/67 under section 147(b); notice under section 148 to issue." It is apparent, therefore, that the reopening was sought, because (i) of the view of the Income-tax Officer that on the blade making machinery the petitioner is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 7% and not at the rate of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terms of clause (b). We are, however, of the opinion that the decision of the Income-tax Officer in respect of another assessee for another assessment year is not a decision of any higher authority and is merely an opinion of an officer of co-ordinate authority on the basis of the facts of the case and that cannot be considered to be the information in terms of clause (b) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This is the ratio of the decision in the case of Reform Flour Mills (Private) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and we are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. In the premises we are of the opinion that the learned judge was right in quashing the notices concerned as the condition precedent for the issuance of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X