9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o on the examination of them, by his orders dated November 6, 1974 (Exs. G, J and L), completed the assessment for the said years. For the assessment years 1975-76, Kemptur and Gururaj Bhat filed their separate returns before the WTO. On those returns, the WTO obtained a valuation report from the Valuation Officer of the Department under s. 16A of the Act, and, on that and all other relevant facts, has completed the assessments against them for the said year which are separately challenged by them in appeals under the Act and we are not concerned with their pendency or their result also. But, on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer, which is also the stand taken by the Revenue at the hearing, the WTO by his separate and identical notices dated November 23, 1976, and November 22, 1976, issued under s. 17 of the Act has called upon the petitioners to file their returns for the aforesaid years the validity of which are challenged by them in these separate but identical writ petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution on diverse grounds. But, at the hearing, their learned counsel, Sri G. Sarangan has confined their challenge to only one ground that will be noticed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian and Eastern Newspaper's case [1979] 119 ITR 996, the Supreme Court while examining the question whether the opinion expressed by the internal audit party of the Income-tax Department, would constitute information as to law or fact, reiterated the principles stated in Maharaj Kumar [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) and Raman cases [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), and further expressed thus (p. 1001): " That definition has been reaffirmed in subsequent case, and with it as the point of departure we shall now proceed. In so far as the word 'information' means instruction or knowledge concerning facts or particulars, there is little difficulty. By its inherent nature, a fact has concrete existence. It influences the determination of an issue by the mere circumstance of its relevance. It requires no further authority to make it significant. Its quintessential value lies in its definitive vitality. " These meanings placed by the Supreme Court on the analogous provisions of the 1922 and 1961 Acts are also applicable to the term " information " occurring in s. 17(1)(b) of the Act and Sri Sarangan also did not dispute the same. Bearing this in mind, it is now necessary to examine the contention urged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. Assuming for purposes of argument that the report of the Valuation Officer under s. 16A of the Act was only an opinion of that person or officer, in such an event also, that would be a fact, within the meaning of that term occurring in s. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the same would thus be an information as to a fact to confer jurisdiction under s. 17(1)(b) of the Act. But Sri Sarangan with considerable vehemence urged that the aforesaid construction would result in reopening all assessments and endless enquiries and should, therefore, be avoided. Firstly, this argument of despair cannot be a sound ground to place an unwarranted restriction on the construction of the Act. Secondly, the possibility of misuse is not also a ground to restrict the meaning of the term " information " and the power conferred by the Act. Lastly, all the legal presumptions to be applied in the enforcement of the Act militate against the acceptance of this contention. For all these reasons, I have no hesitation in rejecting this contention of Sri Sarangan. In CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 212 (SC), in Acchut Kumar S. Inamdar v. P. R. Hajarnavis [1981] 132 ITR 331 (Bom), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 1, in the present case, is totally erroneous and respondent No. 1 has assumed jurisdiction illegally and irregularly. The two interim notices dated March 26, 1973, and February 4, 1974, required to be struck down. " The one and the only reason given by his Lordship in this case is that mere change of opinion of the succeeding officer was not enough to reopen the assessment. If that is so, which is also the settled legal position, that is undoubtedly correct. But that is not the position in the present case. In these cases the WTO has proposed to reopen the assessments on the basis of an information as to a fact of the Valuation Officer under s. 15A of the Act, which I have earlier examined and held was an information as to fact within the meaning of that term occurring in s. 17(1)(b) of the Act. In this view, the ratio in Tulsidas Kilachand's case [1980] 122 ITR 458 (Bom), does not bear on the point. Let me assume that the facts of these cases and the question that arises is similar to Tulsidas Kilachand's case and examine the same on that basis. Earlier, I have held that the rulings of the Supreme Court in Simon Carves' case [1976] 105 ITR 212 (SC), does not bear on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
