9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was reopened under section 146 on April 8, 1981. Fresh assessment was made under section 143(3) read with section 144B on June 18, 1981. After the assessment was completed, the internal audit of the Income-tax Department raised a number of objections and made general observations regarding the petitioner's above assessment. On the basis thereof, the Income-tax Officer, in the first instance, felt that the assessment required to be rectified under section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he issued a notice dated January 28, 1982, and forwarded the objections raised and the general observations made by the internal audit to the petitioner calling for its explanation. An explanation was filed on February 8, 1982. Nothing h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and without any basis. That apart, it merely amounted to a change of opinion on questions which, to say the least, were mixed questions of fact and law. In support of the contention that audit objections could not be a valid basis for reopening of the assessment, Shri Bhujle relied on the Supreme Court decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996. Dr. V. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, stated that the audit objections pertained to facts and not to law. As held by the Supreme Court in the decision relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, the information as to fact could be given by anybody including the internal audit. In this context, he referred to the certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to one certificate from the Reserve Bank of India in respect of a contract in February, 1978. The petitioner's explanation thereto was categorical. For each and every contract, the petitioner was stated to have taken the Reserve Bank's permission. It was only by way of illustration that one letter of permission from the Reserve Bank was filed. The next important objection is that the petitioner should have deducted tax out of the salaries paid to all skilled, unskilled, semi-skilled labourers supplied by the petitioner. Here again, the concerned employees admittedly working outside and not in India, to say the least, it is debatable whether the tax should have been deducted out of the salaries payable to them. In any event, all these questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
