9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated March 16, 1990, made under section 143(3) of the Act and allowed deduction of Rs. 1,31,800 under section 32AB of the Act, stating in the order that it was being allowed as per the audit report in Part III. The impugned notices at annexure "A" were issued on March 15, 1996, and April 18, 1996, for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, respectively, under section 148 of the said Act. No reasons were however communicated in the notice or along with it. Therefore, one of the grievances made by the petitioner was about the reasons on the basis of which the notices were issued. The respondent in his affidavit-in-reply filed in this petition has placed on record the reasons which prompted the issuance of the said notices. It is recorded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reserve fund. There is no dispute about the fact that in the assessment order the deduction in respect of Rs. 1,31,800 was allowed by the Income-tax Officer under section 32AB as per the audit report in Part III. Therefore, the particulars of audit report filed by the assessee were before the Income-tax Officer when he made the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Both the sides have referred to a copy of the audit report which was the subject-matter of the said assessment. In the balance-sheet, there is a reference to investment allowance having been utilised to the tune of Rs. 1,10,931. The amount of Rs. 31,800 said to have been utilised for purchase of machinery is separately stated while claiming deductions under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e total amount of Rs. 1,10,931 was not utilised for the purpose for which it was withdrawn and further that the machinery worth Rs. 31,800 was purchased out of the amount of Rs. 1,10,931. According to us, this enquiry could have been made on the basis of the material already disclosed before the Income-tax Officer while making the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. It is a settled legal position as held by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, that from the primary facts in his possession, whether on disclosure by the assessee or discovered by him on the basis of the facts disclosed, or otherwise, the assessing authority had to draw inferences as regards certain other facts ; and ultimately from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principles laid down in its earlier decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 observed that any remissness on the part of the assessing authority can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, so that stale issues are not reactivated beyond a particular stage and the controversies are set at rest. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned notices could not have been issued after the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year had lapsed since the conditions for exercise of the power beyond four years contemplated by the proviso to section 147 did not exist. The impugned notices are, therefore, q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
