9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as completed on a total income of Rs. 8,010 after adding back items which were obviously in admissible. This original assessment u/s 143 (1) was made on 21st September, 1979. 3. The main business of the assessee firm is purchase and sale of radios as well as their repairs. The ITO, however, reopened the original assessment by a notice u/s 148 served upon the assessee on 2nd June, 1973. The assessee filed a return in response to notice u/s 148 on 25th July,1973 declaring the income as already assessed. However, the re-assessment was finalised on a total income of Rs. 73,530 on 31st March,1976. The reassessment was challenged appeal in before the AAC. 4. The AAC vide his order dt. 20th February, 1978, appearing at page 15 and 16 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books issued, It has therefore, been urged that the notice issued was based merely on suspicion, From the reasons recorded by the ITO as reproduced above it is also clear that he has not discussed the material on the basis of which he formed belief that the income had escaped assessment. "In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ITO has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 unless he had bonafide belief on the basis of definite information that Income had escaped assessment. In the circumstance, the entire proceedings were vitiated. I, am, therefore, unable to sustain the order passed by the ITO. The issue of notice u/s 148 and subsequent passing of the order u/s 143 (3)147 are, therefore annulled." The above order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made in the reassessment dt. 31st July,1976 which was annulled by the AAC vide his order dt. 20 Febraury,1978. This we are recording as a finding of fact that items of income and deductions in the two re-assessment made 31st July, 1976 and 26th December,1978 are exactly the same. The so made re-assessment was challenged in appeal once over before the AAC. 6. The AAC by her impugned order dt. 31st March, 1979 cancelled the assessment following the ratio of the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mannu Lal Kedarnath (1978) 114 ITR 884 (All). Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue before us. 7. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the ld. AAC erred in applying the ratio of the Allahabad High Court judgeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the order of the AAC cancelling that assessment had become final as it has not been challenged by the Revenue, the re-assessment is bad in law in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement and the judgement of the Allahabad High Court referred to supra. 9. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions and we find no substance in the appeal of the Revenue which has to be dismissed. It is clear from the facts recorded above that when the AAC cancelled the re-assessment dt. 31st July, 1976 he took into consideration the legality of the reassessment proceedings as well as the merit of the case. We have extracted supra operative portion of his order to emphasis this aspect of the matter. From the extracted portion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
