TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property, etc. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee filed a return on October 30, 1971, declaring an income of Rs. 10,470. He filed a revised return on March 29, 1974, at an income of Rs. 10,410. By an order dated March 18, 1975, passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Ambala (hereinafter described as "the Assessing Officer"), made assessment on a total income of Rs. 10,745. he gave the following footnote in the assessment order: "Valuer's certificate show cost of construction at Rs. 3,18,300. This case was referred to the Government Valuer. Report has not been received. The case being barred by limitation, I am, therefore, completing the assessment. Action under section 148 will be taken if called for on receipt of valuer's report." After about six months, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that there was wide variation in the cost of construction shown by the assessee in relation to the commercial building constructed by him along with his brother, Shri Vidya Sagar at Chandigarh. He observed that the assessee had sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was not sufficient to invoke that section. Shri Bindal submitted that the Departmental Valuation Report constituted a relevant material which could be taken into consideration for initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Shri Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the assessee, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 and of different High Courts in Smt. Tarawati Debi Agarwal v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 606 (Cal); Abdul Majid v. ITO [1989] 178 ITR 616 (MP); Sardar Kehar Singh v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 769 (Raj); CIT v. Smt. Usha Mathur [2001] 252 ITR 179 (P H) and CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] and argued that mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer cannot be made a ground for reopening the assessment by invoking section 147 of the Act. We have given serious thought to the respective arguments and carefully persued the record. It is settled law that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Act only if, on the basis of specific, reliance and relevant information coming to his possession subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had issued show-cause notice to the assessee under section 147 of the Act solely on the basis of the Departmental Valuer's report. He opined that the cost of construction projected by the assessee and his brother was not correct and in the absence of any plusible explanation for wide variation in the projected cost of construction and the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, it was appropriate to take action under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner referred to the order passed by him in the case of Vidya Sagar and held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996, the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Rajeshwari Birla v. WTO [1979] 119 ITR 629 and of this court in Jindal Strips Ltd. v. ITO [1979] 116 ITR 825 [FB] and held as under: "In so far as the word 'information' means instruction of knowledge concerning facts or particulars, there is little difficulty. By its inherent nature, a fact has concrete existence. It influences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting the original assessments. It is not open to him to complete to the original assessment proceedings without waiting for the said valuation report and then later on seek to reopen the assessments, by treating the valuation report as new information coming in his possession within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act. The provision in section 147(b) is intended not only to bring to charge escaped income but also to protect against arbitrary reopening of assessments by the Revenue." In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act is correct and the question referred by it in pursuance of the direction given by this court deserves to be answered against the Revenue. Before concluding, we may refer to the judgment of this court in Grover Nursing Home v. ITO [2001] 248 ITR 493. That was a case in which the assessee had challenged the legality of the show-cause notice. After examining the facts of the case, this court held as under (headnote): "That even though the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer cannot be made the sole basis for initiating action under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
