9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versy. The assessee is a company and filed the return of income for the assessment year 1978-79, admitting a total income of Rs. 4,03,800. The return is dated July 19, 1978. However, on June 21, 1980, the assessee wrote a letter to the Income-tax Officer stating that a sum of Rs. 31,061 was wrongly included in the total income shown in the return and that it was liable to be ignored and, therefore, the Assessment Officer was requested to complete the assessment excluding the figure of Rs. 31,061. The total income shown in the return then would come to Rs. 3,72,739. The Assessment Officer computed the assessee's income and came to the conclusion that the assessee's income would come to Rs. 4,77,000. The difference then being more than Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment and for that the subsequent letter of the assessee was very relevant because it had the effect of lessening the original returned amount of Rs. 4,03,800 to Rs. 3,72,739. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer would be entitled to the extended time limit particularly under section 153 read with clause (iv) of Explanation 1. On further appeal, the Tribunal also confirmed this order and that is how the reference came to be made before us. Learned counsel for the assessee argues that the Tribunal was wrong in interpreting the words in section 144B of the Act which are to the effect "to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the assessee". He tries to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a particular year. In this case, if the assessee had specifically written the letters to the Income-tax Officer that the income of Rs. 31,061 should be ignored and should be deducted out of the returned income of Rs. 4,03,800, the amount returned would be not Rs. 4,03,800 but the amount would be Rs. 3,72,739. The assessee cannot be allowed to change its stand altogether because it would be bound by its own letters. In our view, therefore, the plea raised by the assessee that the action under section 144B could not have been taken is wholly incorrect. If the action could be taken under section 144B validly, as has happened in this case, the time taken for the issuance of the directions by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would have to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
