9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been assessed to income-tax as such by respondent No. 1. The assessment years involved in these petitions are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner's assessment was made by the predecessor-in-office of respondent No.1 who allowed deductions under ss. 80HH and 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). The petitioner received notices dated July 17, 1978, under s. 148 of the Act for the aforesaid three years for reassessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. A copy of the notice is filed by the petitioner as annex. C to the petitions. The petitioner filed returns under protest. Thereafter, the ITO served on the petitioner a notice dated September 28, 1979, whereby the petitioner was asked to produce documentary evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns given by respondent No. 1 for the reopening of the assessment for the year 1975-76 are as follows: " In this case the original assessment order was passed under sec. 143(3) dated March 17, 1976, at the total income of Rs. 24,910. While passing the assessment order my predecessor allowed deduction u/s. 80HH at Rs. 9,755 and deduction u/s. 80J at Rs. 7,130. The scrutiny of records by me reveals that the assessee-firm has taken over the business of Atul Ginning Factory which has been considered as an industrial undertaking within the meaning of ss. 80HH and 80J, by the predecessor at the time of assessment from the HUF, M/s. Kamalchand Nanalal, Dhar, during the year under consideration. Therefore, the industrial undertaking does not fulfil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 1 originally allowed deductions under ss. 80HH and 80J of the Act. No new information appears to have come into the possession of respondent No. 1 which had led him to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment years in question and it was merely a change of opinion which prompted respondent No. 1 to issue the notice for reassessment to the petitioner. In Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v.. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 the Supreme Court has held as follows (p. 1004): " Now, in the case before us, the ITO had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of ss. 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office had committed an error in allowing deduction on the basis of the material on record in consequence of which income had escaped assessment and no fresh information came into the possession of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, it meant that respondent No. 1 had different opinion in the matter on the material already considered by his predecessor-in-office and in the circumstances it was not open to him to reopen the assessment. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and to issue notice under s. 148 of the Act to the assessee for reopening the assessment of the three years referred to above, and to proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
