9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was justified in holding that the previous year in respect of the income from undisclosed sources would be financial year and not the accounting year of the assessee ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,000 from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1956-57 and Rs. 15,600 from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1957-58 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 ? " The ITO, vide his order dated July 6, 1957, and October 17, 1957, had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Tijori account. In the assessment originally completed on August 5, 1957, the ITO overlooked to consider this credit item in the context of the finding given in the assessment order for 1950-51. It is accordingly proposed to reopen this assessment to consider the above-noted investment of Rs. 26,000 which does not stand properly explained and is prima facie income from undisclosed sources. The tax effect will be about Rs. 47,000. " The Commissioner granted approval by making an endorsement "Yes" for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal after considering the above reasons recorded by the ITO for reopening the assessment observed that : " Mere look at the aforesaid reasons shows that so far as the Incometax Officer is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure or omission of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts at the time of making the original assessment. In the absence of such finding recorded by the ITO, he had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under s. 147(a) of the Act. It is well settled that even if there was any oversight or mistake or inadvertence in making the original assessment, it does not empower any ITO to reopen the assessment under s. 147(a) of the Act. A catena of decisions have been cited by Mr. Ranka in support of the view taken above. They are: (1) Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), (2) CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC), (3) Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC of IT [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), (4) Gemini Leather S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
