TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to be reopened for the reason that the successor of the Income-tax Officer who had made the original assessment had changed his opinion which lid not furnish a justifiable reason for taking action under section 34(1)(b). Appeal dismissed - C.A. 1080 OF 1971 - - - Dated:- 27-8-1971 - Judge(s) : A. N. GROVER. and K. S. HEGDE. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by GROVER J.-- This is an appeal from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in an income-tax reference. Originally it has been brought by certificate but the same had to be revoked (i.e., in C. A. No. 1685 of 1968) as no reasons had been given in the order granting the certificate. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, moved this court under arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the income. The assessee wrote a letter saying that he had fully disclosed the details of his income from all sources in his original return and nothing had escaped assessment. In fact he had indicated that he had a share in the profits of the Madras firm and was also entitled to interest on the capital invested therein. The Income-tax Officer, however, completed the assessment for the aforesaid year as also the subsequent assessment year in which also the share of the income from the Madras firm had not been included. The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was allowed on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had no additional information either externally or internally which came into his posses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , answered against the revenue. It may be mentioned that the decisions relating to section 34(1)(b) are a legion and it may seem that divergent views have been expressed in some of the cases in the light of their peculiar facts. The revenue has contended for the proposition which was accepted by the Madras High Court in family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that, although a mere change of opinion regarding the chargeability of income on the part of the reassessing officer, different from his own previous opinion or that of his predecessor in office, might not justify action under section 34(1)(b), income which escapes assessment as a result of the lack of vigilance of the Income-tax Officer or due to inadvert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n after the previous assessment but even if the information be such that it could have been obtained during the previous assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record or the facts disclosed thereby or from other inquiry or research into facts or law but was not in fact obtained, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer was not affected. It is not disputed that the facts in the above case were altogether different from those of the present case. But on behalf of the revenue assistance has been sought to support the contention that even if there has been an omission to include a particular item of income in an assessment by inadvertence, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to invoke the provisions of section 34(1)(b) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
