TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing authority and permitting him to take advantage of his own wrong. The first proviso to section 147 can be resorted to only if the assessee has not discharged the duty. Where the assessee has discharged his duty and the assessment completed under section 143 (3) is reopened within the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, the assessing officer has to either show that the disclosure is not full and true or he has come into possession of some "tangible material", to borrow with respect the expression used by the Supreme Court in Kelvinator (supra), to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income. The material must have a live link with the formation of the belief regarding escapement of income. When there is no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish full and true particulars and there is no tangible material on the basis of which the assessing officer can allege escapement of income, the only consequence would be that the assessing officer was exercising the power of review on the very same materials which he is presumed to have examined. This would amount to abuse of the power to re-assess and has to be checked. When the assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether the bar or prohibition under the principle "change of opinion" will apply even when the Assessing Officer has not asked any question or query with respect to an entry/note, but there is evidence and material to show that the Assessing Officer had raised queries and questions on other aspects? (iv) Whether and in what circumstances Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act can be applied and it can be held that it is a case of change of opinion?" 2. We need not refer to the factual matrix relating to ITA 2026/2010 (supra) but are only required to note that the aforesaid questions relate to interpretation of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. We record that the questions of law require elucidation in view of contentions raised regarding observations made by the Bench of three Judges of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi - FB). Revenue had filed an appeal against the said decision but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in a decision which is reported as CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 2 SCC 723. Conflicting views expressed on the question of "change of opinion" h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef in the return; (c) where an assessment has been made, but (i) income chargeable to tax has been under assessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. Explanation 3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 4. For the purpose of clarity we state that we are required to examine and answer the said questions in cases where an assessee is earlier subjected to regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and the reassessment notice issued is under challenge. Where an assessee has not been subjected to regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the issue stands concluded by the decision of the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the case and, detailing the reasons upon which the judgment is based. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (3rd Edition) explains the term 'opinion' to mean "something more than mere retaining of gossip or hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question An opinion is a conviction based on testimony . they are as a result of reading, experience and reflection". 8. In the context of assessment proceedings, it means formation of belief by an Assessing Officer resulting from what he thinks on a particular question. It is a result of understanding, experience and reflection to use the words in Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar. Question of change of opinion arise when an Assessing Officer forms an opinion and decides not to make an addition or holds that the assessee is correct and accepts his position or stand. 9. It was argued on behalf of the Revenue that for determining whether or not it is not a case of change of opinion, reference can and should be made only to the assessment order and the discussion or the reasons stated therein. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen no such opinion was formed, it will be too far-fetched to assume that a change in that opinion was being effected. Further, the safest and surest guide for ascertaining whether any such opinion was formed at the original assessment stage is to look to the assessment order itself. When it, of its own, does not reveal that the matters and controversies now sought to be raised by way of reassessment were at all before the ITO or considered by him, it would be entirely surmiseful and, therefore, not permissible to still import their existence and consideration. This can, however, be permissible only where the assessment record of that stage overwhelmingly brings out that the matter did come for due consideration and was in fact considered. Mere silence on a matter or absence of discussion in the original order does not imply that the ITO adjudicated upon the same one way or the other." (Emphasis supplied) 10. We may note that the said decision was not dealing with Section 147 of the Act as amended with effect from 1st April, 1989, but was with reference to Section 147(b) of the Act under which an Assessing Officer could reopen assessment on the basis of "information". The term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of Gujarat with which we find ourselves in respectful agreement, the action initiated by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment cannot be said to be either incompetent or otherwise improper to call for interference by a writ court. The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned order passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigible to tax had in his opinion escaped assessment. The argument that the proposed reopening of assessment was based only upon a change of opinion has not impressed us. The assessment order did not admittedly address itself to the question which the Assessing Officer proposes to examine in the course of reassessment proceedings. The submission of Mr. Vohra that even when the order of assessment did not record any explicit opinion on the aspects now sought to be examined, it must be presumed that those aspects were present to the mind of the Assessing Officer and had been held in favour of the assessee is too far-fetched a proposition to merit acceptance. There may indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been regularly conducted, but there can be no presumption that even when the order of assessment is silent, all poss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange of opinion; (2) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment order itself records that the issue was raised and is decided in favour of the assesse. Reassessment proceedings in the said cases will be hit by principle of "change of opinion". (3) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter the Assessing Officer does not make any addition in the assessment order. In such situations it should be accepted that the issue was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find any ground or reason to make addition or reject the stand of the assessee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons. 14. In the second and third situation, the Revenue is not without remedy. In case the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, they are entitled to and can invoke power under Section 263 of the Act. This aspect and position has been highlighted in CIT v. DLF Powers Ltd. ITA 973/2011 decided on 29th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not necessary that the same may come from a third person or source, i.e., from source other than the assessment records. However, in such cases, the onus will be on the Revenue to show that the assessee had stated incorrect and wrong material facts resulting in the Assessing Officer proceeding on the basis of facts, which are incorrect and wrong. The reasons recorded and the documents on record are of paramount importance and will have to be examined to determine whether the stand of the Revenue is correct. Decision of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6205/2010, Dalmia (P.) Ltd. v. CIT Delhi 10 and Another, dated 26 September, 2011 and decision of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1017/2011, The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, dated 8th November, 2011 are two such cases. In the first case, the Assessing Officer in the original assessment had made additions of Rs. 19,86,551/- under Section 40(1) on account of unconfirmed sundry creditors. The reassessment proceedings were initiated after noticing that unconfirmed sundry creditors, of which details etc. were not furnished, were to the extent of Rs. 52,84,058/- and not Rs. 19,86,551/-. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The final ascertainment takes place when the final or reassessment order is passed. It is enough if the Assessing Officer can show tentatively or prima facie on the basis of the reasons recorded and with reference to the documents available on record that income has escaped assessment. 20. This brings us to the observations of Delhi High Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) which read as under:- "The Board in exercise of its jurisdiction under the afore-mentioned provisions had issued the Circular on 31st October 1989. The said Circular admittedly is binding on the Revenue. The Authority, Therefore, could not have taken a view, which would run counter to the mandate of the said Circular. Clause 7.2 as referred to hereinbefore is important. From a perusal of Clause 7.2 of the said Circular it would appear that in no uncertain terms it was stated as to under what circumstances the amendments had been carried out i.e. only with a view to allay the fears that the omission of the expression "reason to believe" from Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessment on mere change of opinion. It is, Therefore, evident that even accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the assessing officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving premium to an authority exercising quasi judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong." 21. In order to appreciate and understand the said observation, it is necessary to examine the facts of the said case. The assessment year in reference was 1987-88 but the reopening notice was issued on 20th April, 1990 after the amended Section 147 was applicable. Original return filed on 29th June, 1987 was revised on 5th October, 1989, along with a letter explaining why the return was being revised. In the letter the assessee had explained and submitted that rent of Rs. 1,76,000/- and depreciation of Rs. 66,441/- should be allowed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer from the facts disclosed. It is for the Assessing Officer to understand and apply the law. In such cases resort to reassessment proceedings is not permissible but in a given case where an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue is passed, option to correct the error is available under Section 263 of the Act. 23. The said observations do not mean that even if the Assessing Officer did not examine a particular subject matter, entry or claim/deduction and therefore had not formed any opinion, it must be presumed that he must have formed an opinion. This is not what was argued by the assessee or held and decided. There cannot be deemed formation of opinion even when the particular subject matter, entry or claim/deduction is not examined. 24. Distinction between disclosure/declaration of material facts made by the assessee and the effect thereof and the principle of change of opinion is apparent and recognized. Failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts is a precondition which should be satisfied if the reopening is after four years of the end of the assessment year. The explanation stipulates that mere production of books of accounts and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries or deductions. The Assessing Officer inspite of best efforts or intention can miss out and not examine and go into a subject matter, claim, entry or deduction. An assessee cannot contend or state that in the reams and plethora of papers, notes and entries, entry, a statement was made, or claim or entry was explained and the principle of better be-ware applies. When a subject matter, entry, claim or deduction remains hidden or unexamined by the Assessing Officer, be it for any reason, it is not a case of change of opinion. 27. The aforesaid observations in paragraphs 23 to 26 have not to be read in isolation but are to be read with caveat set out in paragraph 39 below. Whether or not the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and examined the subject matter, claim etc. depends upon factual matrix of each case. The Assessing Officer can examine a claim or subject matter even without raising a written query. There can be cases where an aspect or question is too apparent or obvious to hold that the Assessing Officer did not examine a particular subject matter, claim etc. The stand and stance of the assessee and the Assessing Officer in such cases are relevant. 28. The Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on whether the order on merit was correct or not. It can not be applied to defend the conclusion on merits. 31. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate, appearing for the assessee had submitted that the reference should be declined and not answered in view of doctrine of merger as the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) has merged and was approved by the Supreme Court. Reference was made to Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) and Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] ITR 170 (Bom.). We note that these are decisions on the question whether and when an application for review can be filed before the High Court, even after dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in their decision in Kelvinator of India (supra) had examined the question whether "change of opinion" can justify reopening of assessing. The Supreme Court has not stated or made any observation with reference to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The doctrine of merger, if applied, would require that we accept and apply the reasoning and ratio given by the Supreme Court. By applying the "doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt thereafter referred to the subsequent decision in Indian and Eastern Newspapers Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was observed that some of the observations made in Kalyanji Mavji (supra) were far too wide and the statute did not permit reappraisal of material considered by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The observations in Kalyanji Maviji (supra) that reopening would cover a case "where income has escaped assessment due to the oversight, inadvertence or mistake" was too broadly expressed and did not lay down the correct law. It was clarified and observed at page 1005 in Indian Eastern Newspapers Society (supra) as :- "Now, in the case before us, the Income Tax Officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of Sections 9 and 10. 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 Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven leaving this out of consideration, there can be no doubt that the present case is squarely covered by proposition (4) set out in Kalyanji Mavji Co. (supra). This proposition clearly envisages a formation of opinion by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of material already on record provided the formation of such opinion is consequent on "information" in the shape of some light thrown on aspects of facts or law which the I.T.O. had not earlier been conscious of. To give a couple of illustrations, suppose an I.T.O., in the original assessment, which is a voluminous one involving several contentions, accepts a plea of the assessee in regard to one of the items that the profits realised on the sale of a house is a capital realisation not chargeable to tax. Subsequently he finds, in the forest of papers filed in connection with the assessment, several instances of earlier sales of house property by the assessee. That would be a case where the I.T.O. derives information from the record on an investigation or enquiry into facts not originally undertaken. Again, suppose in I.T.O. accepts the plea of an assessee that a particular receipt is not income liable to tax. But, on further r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO realise that he has committed an error in the earlier assessment. This paragraph does not in any way affect the principle enumerated in the two Madras cases cited with approval in Anandji Haridas [1986] 21 S.T.C. 326. Even making allowances for this limitation placed on the observations in Kalyanji Mavji, the position as summarised by the High Court in the following words represents, in our view, the correct position in law: The result of these decisions is that the statute does not require that the information must be extraneous to the record. It is enough if the material, on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings are sought to be initiated, came to the notice of the Income-tax Officer subsequent to the original assessment. If the Income-tax Officer had considered and formed an opinion on the said material in the original assessment itself, then he would be powerless to start the proceedings for the reassessment. Where, however, the Income-tax Officer had not considered the material and subsequently come by the material from the record itself, then such a case would fall within the scope of Section 147(b) of the Act." (emphasis supplied) 36. The aforesaid obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he material which constituted information and on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was the decision in Ramachari. This material was not considered at the time of the original assessment. Though it was a decision of 1961 and the I.T.O. could have known of it had he been diligent, the obvious fact is that he was not aware of the existence of the decision then and, when he came to know about it, he rightly initiated proceedings for reassessment." 39. In view of the above observations we must add one caveat. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc, because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. To hold that the assessing officer in the first round did not examine the question or subject matter and form an opinion, would be contrary and opposed to normal human conduct. Such cases have to be examined individually. Some matters may require examination of the assessment order or queries raised by the Assessing Officer and answers given by the assessee but in others cases, a deeper scrutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if he has reason to believe that the assessee has failed to make the requisite disclosure. All that the section says is that in a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened after the period of four years, the only reason available to the AO is the non-disclosure on the part of the assessee. 3. The Act places a general duty on every assessee to furnish full and true particulars along with the return of income or in the course of the assessment proceedings so that the AO is enabled to compute the correct amount of income on which the assessee shall pay tax. I think this thread runs through the various provisions of the Act. But Explanation 1 to the section confines the duty to the disclosure of all primary and material facts necessary for the assessment, fully and truly. As to what are material or primary facts would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no universal formula may be attempted. The legal or factual inferences from those primary or material facts are for the AO to draw in order to complete the assessment and it is not for the assessee to advise him, for obvious reasons. The Explanation however cautions the assessee that he cannot remain smug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat material or evidence was led before him, and not on the basis of what was written in the assessment order. This is an implicit recognition in the Act that the emphasis is on the furnishing of full and true particulars and primary facts by the assessee, rather than on the manner in which the AO deals with them in the assessment order. Moreover, the assessee, as it was urged, has no say or control over the manner in which the assessment order is drafted. 6. The facts of the present case show that the assessee is a company which is subject to book profit tax under section 115JB. Our attention has been drawn on behalf of the assessee to the various financial accounts, documents, notes to accounts etc. furnished either along with the return or in the course of the assessment proceedings. There is no dispute that full and true particulars were furnished. The original assessment was finalised under section 143(3) - what is called a "scrutiny assessment" - without any discussion of the claims made by the assessee in the assessment order, which claims are now the subject-matter of reassessment. The question is whether the reopening of the assessment is prompted by a mere change of opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pening could be done under the above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in Section 147 of the Act [with effect from 1st April,1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss known to law. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle in ITO v. Habibullah, [1962] 44 ITR 809. 10. It would therefore be appropriate and befitting the controversy to understand the observations of the Supreme Court, while affirming the Full Bench judgment of this court in Kelvinator, in a wholesome manner and in the context of a power given to the assessing authority to disturb the finality of a completed assessment made under section 143(3). Abuse of power to reopen an assessment made under section 143(3) arises when the assessing authority, despite being possessed of full and true particulars furnished by the assessee, makes no reference to them in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) but merely reopens the assessment on the ground that he did not form any opinion when he made the assessment. I come back to the Full Bench judgment of this court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, to hold that this would be a classic instance of abuse of power. 11. It was observed by the Supreme Court that there should be some "tangible material" coming into the possession of the AO in such cases to enable him to resort to section 147. Despite being a case of full and true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s presumed to have accepted the contentions of the assessee even if there is no express reference to them in the assessment order; and if within 2 years he issues a notice to reopen the assessment, it is nothing but a change of opinion. The Supreme Court has held that a change of opinion cannot be introduced in the garb of reopening the assessment, which would be nothing but a review, which power the assessing officer does not possess. I demur to the proposition that the observations of the Full Bench of this court vis-as-vis section 114(e) of the Evidence Act and its applicability to an assessment order passed under section 143(3) were not expressly referred to and approved by the Supreme Court. That would introduce an undesirable element of uncertainty even when finality has been accorded by the decree of Supreme Court. That way, matters could be reargued and re-agitated till the end of time. 15. In Srikrishna Pvt. Ltd. Etc. v. Income Tax Officer Ors., [1996] 221 ITR 538, the Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 147 as it stood prior to 01.04.1989 observed as under: - "To be more precise, he can issue the notice under Section 148 proposing to reopen the assessment only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether any query was raised or not. The question is whether the assessee fulfilled his duty of disclosing fully and truly, all material particulars and primary facts necessary for the assessment of his income. Even in a case where a query is raised and a reply is furnished with all supporting material, if the assessing officer chooses to keep silent in the assessment order, what difference does it make that he did not even raise a query and also chose to be silent in the assessment order? In both the cases the basic requirement that the assessee should have adduced all material particulars and primary facts fully and truly, stands satisfied. The raising of a query may only indicate that the assessing officer had inquired into the matter; but if nothing is recorded in the assessment order, that would still not show what opinion he took of the matter, and one has to only presume that he did accept the assessee's version, which is what the Full Bench has held. In my opinion, there is thus qualitatively no difference between the two types of cases. The ruling of the Full Bench of this Court would apply with equal force to both types of cases, since the assessee has furnished, fully and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case that the assessee did not do so. As noted by me earlier, the first proviso to section 147 can be resorted to only if the assessee has not discharged the duty. Where the assessee has discharged his duty and the assessment completed under section 143 (3) is reopened within the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, the assessing officer has to either show that the disclosure is not full and true or he has come into possession of some "tangible material", to borrow with respect the expression used by the Supreme Court in Kelvinator (supra), to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income. The material must have a live link with the formation of the belief regarding escapement of income. When there is no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish full and true particulars and there is no tangible material on the basis of which the assessing officer can allege escapement of income, the only consequence would be that the assessing officer was exercising the power of review on the very same materials which he is presumed to have examined. This would amount to abuse of the power to re-assess and has to be checked. The solution to this problem lies in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat when once an assessment order is framed under section 143(3) and the assessee had undisputedly furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment, then he must be presumed to have formed an opinion; and if he reopened the assessment within two years without proving any failure on the part of the assessee to furnish full and true particulars, that would only amount to a change of opinion not permissible in law. 20. However, the further observations of the Supreme Court in A.L.A. Firm (supra) broadly support the view taken by the Full Bench of this court. These observations are as under: - "We think there is force in the argument on behalf of the assessee that, in the face of all the details and statement placed before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment, it is difficult to take the view that the Income-tax Officer had not at all applied his mind to the question whether the surplus is taxable or not. It is true that the return was filed and the assessment was completed on the same date. Nevertheless, it is opposed to normal human conduct that an officer would complete the assessment without looking at the material placed before hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment as he did. Indeed it has not been suggested that he was aware of it and yet chose not to apply it. It is, therefore, much easier to see that the initiation of reassessment proceedings here is based on definite material not considered at the time of the original assessment." 21. Quite apart from the fact that A.L.A. Firm (supra) was a case where a binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court was overlooked when the original assessment was made, the earlier part of the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid paragraph show the reluctance or disinclination of the court to accept the broad proposition, that even if full and true particulars had been furnished by the assessee at the time of the original assessment, it cannot be said that the assessing officer had applied his mind to the claims or contentions put forth by the assessee. The observation of the court that " . it is opposed to normal human conduct that an officer would complete the assessment without looking at the material placed before him" is in substance and effect echoed in the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Kelvinator (supra). Again the emphasis is as to whether the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
