TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed for further hearing on 16th Nov., 1964 10th Feb., 1965. the assessee filed the balance-sheet along with the other details. In the balance-sheet which was scrutinised by the ITO On 10th Feb., 1965, as recorded in the order-sheet on that date, the ITO noted that a sum of Rs. 20,929.60 realised from the Govt., was recorded. The ITO, apparently, therefore, made a noting on this entry in the balance-sheet for the assessment year to furnish the cost of acquisition or cost as on 1st Jan., 1954. Against the entry, the ITO also noted the date 7th Dec., 1959 on which this amount had been received. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 4th March, 1966. On 4th March, 1966, the assessee filed a letter dt. 4th March, 1965, Photostat copy of which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion that the capital gains were not taxable in the asst. yr. 1959-60. 5. The claim for the acquisition of land had been made by the assessee at Rs. 1,79,900 but, in fact, the Collector, who acquired the land vide his order dt. 4th Sept., 1958 paid Rs. 20,938 on 7th Dec., 1959. However, the assessee moved the additional District Judge in reference for enhancement of the compensation and the Court give its judgment on 10th Dec., 1966 fixing the value at Rs. 1,36,000. However, the State filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,02,907 in July 1970. This was the factual backdrop of the case with the ITO when the recorded reasons on 1st Feb., 1977 with the proposal to the Board for reopening th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perly. Since the sanction of the Board was obtained on not proper representation of facts, which, in fact, tantamounts to misrepresentation of facts, the sanction obtained was not in accordance with law. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are ab initio void for two reasons: (i) It was merely a change of opinion by the ITO because he had considered this matter and had come to a definite conclusion, after obtaining a clarification form the assessee as contained in latter dt. 4th March, 1961 at the time of original assessment proceedings. (ii) The sanction, obtained by the ITO from the Board was not in accordance with law in view of what is stated above. 7. The ld. CIT (A), in his impugned order observed that the ITO got the informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
