9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a point of law could not be regarded as "information" enabling the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings under s. 147(B). The ITO had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of ss. 9 and 10 of the Indian IT Act, 1922. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him." "The proposition in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Co. (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) to the effect that a case where income has escaped assessment due to "over sight, inadvertence or mistake" of the ITO must fall within s. 34(1)(b) of the Indian IT Act, 1922 is stated too widely and travels farther than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i vs. ITO Investigation Ors. (1975) 100 ITR 97 (Guj). (4) 138 ITR 523. (5) Shri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1977 CTR (Mad) 96 : (1978) 111 ITR 562 (Mad) (6) Kamal Chand vs. ITO Anr. (1981) 128 ITR 290 (MP). (7) (1981) 126 ITR 622. It was argued that the report of the audit party in this case on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was on issue of law and this report could not form the basis for reopening the assessment and could not act as an information. He stated that according the decided case laws, there should be an information which came to the possession of the ITO after the completion of the earlier assessment and that information could form the basis for re-opening of the original assessment under s. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued notice under s. 147 (b) and, withdrew the weighted deduction under s. 35B on most of the items on which the ITO framing the assessment earlier had allowed the weighted deduction. In our opinion, on the facts of the case, the said decision of Supreme Court applies fully. Respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court, we hold that the Audit party was not authorised to give an opinion on an issue of law and such opinion given by the Audit party could not correctly form the basis for reopening the assessment under s. 147(b). The assessments so reopened under s. 147 (b), therefore, was correctly cancelled by the CIT (A). The order of the CIT (A) is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. The delay of two days only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
