9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joint family and was wrongly included in his individual income in the original assessment ? " The material facts are these. The assessee is a medical practitioner. During the assessment year 1967-68, he was also a partner in a firm styled as M/s. Motilal Dhannilal Tapa, Mandla. The original assessment for this assessment year of the assessee was completed on March 7, 1968, on an income of Rs. 12,770 out of which Rs. 1,500 was his professional income. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer reopened the proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act on the basis of information received by him by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. As a result of the reassessment made by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee's total income was raised to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings for reassessment under section 147(a), it is open to the assessee to point out the mistakes in the original assessment which were made to his detriment even though he did not make any grievance about it either in the proceedings for original assessment or thereafter in appeal. It is argued on this basis that the assessee is entitled to show, even though no such point was urged during the course of the original assessment, that the assessee's income as a partner of the firm should have been excluded from his income notwithstanding the fact that he included it in the income shown in the return and had also not advanced this argument in the original assessment proceedings. The question is whether the assessee has such a right in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim that the proceedings for reassessment be dropped on the ground that he had been assessed on an amount or to a sum not lower than what he would be rightly liable for even if the income alleged to have escaped assessment had been taken into account, or the assessment or computation had been properly made. This is a clear indication that the assessee is given such a right only in cases falling under section 147(b). It follows that, but for the provision contained in section 152(2), the assessee would not have such a right even in cases falling under section 147(b), and no such right having been given in cases of reassessment under section 147(a), it is not permissible to read this right for the assessee much less the larger right claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of any item not falling in that category. The next decision is in Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 166 (Cal). This decision is based on V. Jaganmohan Rao's case [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC). The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. The original assessment proceedings initiated had ended by filing the case. On reopening the assessment by setting aside the previous under assessment, it was held that the whole assessment proceedings started afresh and there was no reason why the admitted loss left undetermined should not be recomputed. This decision cannot, therefore, be treated as an authority for the contrary view inasmuch as it was based on the reason that the item of loss having remained undetermined co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
