TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and Master Vivek Anil Saraf, son of Dr. Anilkumar V. Saraf, to the benefits of the partnership. 2. The original assessment on the accountable person consequent on the death of Shri V.G. Saraf was completed on 27th March, 1989, fixing the principal value of the estate at Rs. 70,93,950. Subsequently, this was subject to rectification under s. 61 on 21st Aug., 1989, reducing the principal value to Rs. 57,29,355. On appeal to the ACED, the principal value got further reduced to Rs. 48,01,390. Then the assessment was reopened under s. 59 of the ED Act, 1953. In the re-assessment proceedings, the Asstt. CED took the share of the deceased in the accumulated profits of the firm upto 15th Sept., 1981, at 50% and thereafter at 20% upto the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a change of opinion of the party of the Assessing Officer. Further, it was only the property that existed on the date of the death that could pass on. As for the refunds, he held that it could not be definitely said that the refund and interest thereon were due to the deceased on the date of death and hence reallocation of it cannot be made in reassessment. As for the tax liabilities, certain amounts were allowed in the original assessment with the remark `subject to revision as and when the assessments are modified'. The revision of tax liabilities if found to have been allowed in excess will be a subject-matter of rectification and cannot form subject-matter of reopening. For these reasons, he agreed with the assessee that there was no ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts. Same consideration would apply to the share of the deceased in the quantification of the refund. Further, in the light of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CED vs. Maharani Raj Laxmi Devi (1987) 60 CTR (All) 71 : (1987) 168 ITR 389 (All) it cannot be said that refunds that were given to the accountable person subsequent to the death of a person is a property capable of being passed on at the time of death. Thus, on merits also, there is no case for reopening in respect of the refunds. 5. The last ground on which reopening was made was to correctly quantify the amount of tax liabilities to be allowed from the principal value of the estate. Even at the time of original assessment, the Assessing Officer was aware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r making on amendment of the original order of assessment to the extent necessary as a result of recomputing the total income of the assessee by withdrawing the rebate originally allowed. The two sections operate in different spheres and if the circumstances of the case warrant the invocation of the wider power conferred by s. 147(b), it is aperfectly open to the ITO to take recourse to the said power even in a case where the reassessment is necessitated by reason of its being found that the development rebate originally allowed is liable to be withdrawn." A careful reading of the decision of the High Court would make us believe that the observations of the High Court to the effect that the two sections [155 and 147(b) are not mutually e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
