9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60 to 1984-85. According to the petitioner, it was entitled to exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and later under section 11 of the Act of 1961. The petitioner contends that it was registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act with the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, for the purpose of grant of exemption under section 11 of the Act. As it was represented by some of the stock exchanges that they should be recognised as institutions established for charitable purposes under section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act also, the Government of India informed some of these stock exchanges including the petitioner by its letter dated December 18, 1980, that they should submit applications for consideration of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 ITR 761) challenging the order dated September 9, 1991. In that petition, since the ground on which the order dated September 9, 1991, rejecting the petitioner's application was passed, came to be withdrawn, it was held by this court by its decision dated January 9, 1997 (see [1997] 225 ITR 761), that the very basis for the decision communicated to the petitioner was withdrawn and, therefore, the order dated September 9, 1991, became an order giving no reason. It was also held that there was no decision taken by the Central Government on the subject under section 10(23C)(iv). In this background, the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh application in respect of these relevant assessment years on which the Government was required to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as granted was a mechanical one without any application of mind by the Deputy Commissioner. It was contended that a mere change of opinion was no ground to initiate reassessment proceedings and none of the impugned notices disclose any valid reason which can enable the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under the provisions of section 148. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions on the following decisions. 1. VXL India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1995] 215 ITR 295 (Guj); 2. ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); 3. Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC). For the assessment year 1988-89, no returns were filed by the petitioner on the ground that its income w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an approval was received, the income from house property, specific services and by way of interest or dividend could not be exempt. It was also noted that the interest income on investment which was liable to be taxed even if the assessees were to be granted exemption under section 10(23A) itself, was Rs. 13,89,070 besides other income exigible to tax. It will thus be noted from the notice that the Assessing Officer recorded cogent reasons for reopening the assessment under section 148. Similarly, for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1993-94, the Assessing Officer separately recorded his reasons for issuing the reassessment notices. For these two years, since the matter fell beyond four years and sanction envisaged by section 151 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsactions. It was held that such a conclusion did not fulfil the requirements of section 151(2) by which on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner was required to decide whether it was a fit case for issue of the notice. We may note here that in a case where a reasoned order is passed while making an assessment, in subsequent proceedings of issuing reassessment notices it is easier to ascertain whether there was mere change of opinion than in a case where the returns are accepted as they are filed and the Assessing Officer does not express his views explicitly. Thus, if the Assessing Officer had considered as to whether section 11 exemption could be claimed or whether exemption under section 10(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed that in respect of those two years, the petitioner did not claim exemption only under section 11 but also in the note which was appended to the returns, in terms it referred to exemption being claimed under section 10(23A). Therefore, when it is not clear that the Assessing Officer had, at the relevant time, applied his mind and granted exemption under a particular provision, when now it transpires that the petitioner is not entitled to any exemption under section 10(23A), the Assessing Officer has even in respect of those two years issued notices for valid and cogent reasons, which are therein mentioned. As regards the other three assessment years, the petitioner had claimed exemption only under section 10(23A) and the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
