9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act was wrongly allowed inasmuch as that the house at Moti Katra, Agra, was shown as one residential house whereas in the wealth-tax record, two houses numbering 9/73 and 9/78 were shown separately. Show-cause notice for reopening of assessment was issued accordingly. The fresh assessment was made by ACED allowing exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act for one house only. The assessee objected against the reopening of the case under s. 59 of the ED Act, before ACED. It was claimed that audit information was no information. It was only an opinion. The assessment has been reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. It was also claimed that two municipal number houses were in fact a single unit occupied hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of audit information is invalid as has been held by Bombay High Court in the case of CED vs. Bank of India (1992) 102 CTR (Bom) 62 : (1992) 192 ITR 606 (Bom). In its order, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that opinion of the internal audit party not based on any fact or legal pronouncement, does not constitute information that property chargeable to tax, escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 59(b) of the ED Act. The reassessment based on such information was invalid. The learned counsel further sated that this view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 190 : (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC). The learned, therefore, argued as the audit informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reassessment order insofar as the exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the Act was concerned. It was argued by learned counsel that both the houses were one residential unit. It was claimed that both the houses are situated in front as well as back portion and after these were purchased, both were combined and made one residential unit. Both the units which were originally having two numbers, are within the one boundary. It was argued that this was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Chaudhan. It was argued in the said case also that there were two properties bearing two distinct municipal numbers. It was held that as the persons living in the said properties were members of the HUF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit was occupied by separate members of the HUF. For the purposes of WT Act, the Hon'ble High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court, has held that all the three houses were one house and exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act was allowable accordingly. We, therefore, feel that on merit, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional High Court though given in the WT Act. We, therefore, hold that the CIT(A) (sic-ACED) was not justified in confirming the order of Asstt. CED. We direct the Asstt. CED to allow exemption under s. 33(1)(n) in respect of both the units owned by assessee, which constituted one house. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the accountable person is partly allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
