9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re can be another view of the matter, this cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment – Held that no referable question of law arises from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. - - - - - Dated:- 30-10-2002 - Judge(s) : N. N. MATHUR., H. R. PANWAR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N.N. MATHUR J.-This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that any action taken by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther observed that as the assessee declared gross profit rate at 6.73 per cent., the market price of the dosing stock must be higher if the amount equal to the gross profit rate as disclosed is added to the closing stock, it would give the fair market value of the closing stock and at this rate, its market value would work out to Rs. 13,09,683. Thus, according to the audit, the market price was higher as on the date of dissolution by Rs. 83,300. As the business came to an end within the relevant period, the Department should have adopted the market value of the closing stock for determining the profit of the business for the first period. Keeping in view the said observation in the audit report, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was clearly a case of change of opinion on the basis of the audit note. Thus, in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996, reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The Tribunal also gave a finding to the effect that the assessee had disclosed all the primary facts for completion of the assessment. The Tribunal by order dated March 7, 1995, dismissed the Departmental appeal. The application filed by the Department under section 256(1) of the Act for reference was rejected, as in the opinion of the Tribunal, the question proposed. did not raise a referable question of law having the controversy settled by the Supreme Court. It is contended by Mr. Sundeep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
