TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in which it has rendered. While applying the decision to a later case, the Court must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down in the decision and not to pick out words from the decision, divorce from the context of question under consideration by Court. If the assessee cannot be allowed to convert the proceedings initiated under Section 147 as revisional or review, the same would also be not available to Revenue. Thus we do not find anything which may help Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Reference No. - 111 of 1986 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2015 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble Shashi Kant,JJ. For the Applicant : V. Gulati,H.P. Agarwal,R.S. Agarwal For the Respondent : B. Agarwal,A. Kumar,A.N. Mahajan, D. Awasthi, G.Krishna, S.Chopra ORDER (Delivered by Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. This reference application has come up at the instance of assessee vide Income Tax Application No. 4 of 1982, arising out of ITA No. 386 (Alld.)/1978-79 and the following reference has been made by Tribunal: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that once the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not prepared to accede to the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that I.T.O. had re-opened the assessment in the instant case with some ulterior motive/purpose or that his action was mala fide. (emphasis added) 7. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., [1979 ]116ITR 158 (Ker) and Indian Eastern Newspaper Society, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, [1979 ]119ITR 996 (SC) for taking the view that once assessment is re-opened in respect of one item, all other aspects would also be opened for re-assessment.. 8. The assessee made an application under Section 255(i) of Act, 1961 before Tribunal requesting for making reference on two questions but the said application was rejected by Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.1981, whereafter the assessee came to this Court and vide order dated 05.03.1986 this Court directed Tribunal to make reference on the question as noted above, pursuant whereto the above reference has come. 9. This Court is now confined to consider the question, whether on re-opening of a case under Section 147, it is open to ITO to consider all other it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded in the original assessment. The assessee cannot claim recompilation of the income or redoing of an assessment and be allowed a claim which he either failed to make or which was otherwise rejected at the time of original assessment which has since acquired finality. Of course, in the reassessment proceedings it is open to an assessee to show that the income alleged to have escaped assessment has in truth and in fact not escaped assessment but that the same had been shown under some inappropriate head in the original return, but to read the judgment in Jaganmohan Rao's case, as if laying down that reassessment wipes out the original assessment and that reassessment is not only confined to escaped assessment or under assessment but to the entire assessment for the year and start the assessment proceeding de-novo giving right to an assessee to re-agitate matters which he had lost during the original assessment proceeding, which had acquired finality, is not only erroneous but also against the phraseology of Section 147 of the Act and the object of reassessment proceedings. (emphasis added) 13. The Court further said that Section 147 is part of a taxing statute. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. Ltd. (1982) 133 ITR 204 (Cal); CIT v. Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 877 (Mad); CIT v. Rangnath Bangur (1984) 149 ITR 487 (Raj); State Bank of Hyderabad v. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 232 (AP); and, CIT v. Indian Rare Earth Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 22 (Bom) (FB). 15. Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing for Revenue attempted to contend that aforesaid judgment must be read to impose such a restriction at the instance of assessee and not for Revenue. He contended that the Court in M/s. Sun Engineering Works (supra) has observed that Section 147 is for the benefit of Revenue and, therefore, whatever restrictive interpretation the Court has given therein, should be applied only when in the matter of re-assessment an objection is raised by assessee and attempt is made to re-open the entire case, but so far as Revenue is concerned, it is free to treat the assessment completely re-opened once proceeding under Section 147 has been issued and there should be no restriction at all. 16. The submission, in our view, is thoroughly misconceived. 17. Before the Apex Court, assessee was attempting to argue that once assessment proceedings recommenced, the entire asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
