9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, proceedings to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act were initiated by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act on February 2, 1979. According to the Assessing Officer, while completing the original assessment, he had wrongly applied a Central Board of Direct Taxes circular dated April 16, 1973, which related to bad debts and which had nothing to do with sticky loans, to, interest amounting to Rs. 2,11,548, which the assessee had, in the relevant accounting year, shown in its suspense account and had thus omitted to bring the same to tax. After receipt of the notice dated February 2, 1979, the assessee filed its return on March 12, 1979, and again claimed that the interest shown by it in its sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income-tax was No. 355 of 1984. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated September 2, 1985, allowed Appeal No. 251 of 1984 holding that inasmuch as while reopening the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer had no subsequent information on the basis of which he could assume jurisdiction; the entire proceedings initiated by him, vide notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, stood vitiated. In the result, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and annulled the assessment made in pursuance of the notice dated February 2, 1979. In the circumstances, he did not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim in respect of the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed both the application as in its opinion, no referable question of law arose from the appellate order of the Tribunal in any of the two appeals disposed of by it. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax filed the present applications under section 266(2) of the Income-tax Act praying that the Tribunal be directed to draw up the, statement of the case and refer the aforementioned two questions of law arising out of Income-tax Appeals Nos. 251 of 1984 and No. 366 of 1984 for the opinion of this court (Reference Application No.115 of 1986 pertains to Income-tax Appeal No.355 of 1984 and Reference Application No.116 of 1986 pertains to Income tax Appeal No. 251 of 1984). So far as the first of the aforementioned two questions is concerned, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iety v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996. In this connection, the court made the following observations at p. 1004: "Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the 'oversight, inadvertence or mistake' of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther than the statute warrants in so far as it can be said to lay down that if, on reappraising the material considered by him during the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer discovers that he has committed an error i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
