9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no reason to differ with the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the reference in the affirmative, in favour of the asses-see and against the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 3-3-2005 - Judge(s) : SWATANTER KUMAR., MADAN B. LOKUR JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Madan B. Lokur J.- The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B (for short "the ITAT"), has referred the following question for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer assumed jurisdiction under section 147(b) of the Act merely on a change of opinion?" The assessee is an individual and the relevant accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation in my possession, after the original assessment, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs. 87,870/- has escaped assessment for the year 1972-73. I, therefore, reopen it under section 147(b)." The assessee challenged the reopening of his assessment and contended that no fresh information was made available to the Income-tax Officer after the original assessment was completed so as to entitle the Income-tax Officer to reopen his assessment. The contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer by holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's directions under section 144B of the Act for the assessment year 1973-74 on the taxability of the above amount constituted information for reopening the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 147(b) of the Act. It has now been conclusively settled by a Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1, that a mere change of opinion by the Income-tax Officer will not bring the provisions of section 147 of the Act into, operation. In fact, the question that was sought to be referred in that case under section 256(2) of the Act was more or less identical to the question that has been referred in the present case. The question sought to be referred in Kelvinator [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] was as follows: "Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the said Act were invalid on the ground that there was a mere cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a quasi-judicial authority while issuing directions under section 144B of the Act, his directions are more in the nature of instructions and guidance to the assessing authority and cannot constitute a source of law. Even otherwise, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was of the view that it cannot be said that the Income-tax Officer had received any new information. All that he did was to look at some of the old facts which were within his knowledge and to reach a different conclusion On the taxability of the interest amount. This is nothing but a mere change of opinion which is not permissible for reopening an assessment. It was not the case of the Income-tax Officer that the information was not available at any point of time. Consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
