TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, that was, part of the spread over of the higher amount which the assessee was found to have invested in the construction and that amount of Rs. 32,500 was part of the larger sum of Rs. 1,30,000. Having regard to that fact and the fact that an appeal had been filed by the Revenue questioning the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which had reduced the figure below Rs. 50,000 and that appeal was pending at that time, we are unable to uphold the submission made by the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not permissible under section 149(2) of the Act. - - - - - Dated:- 19-8-2002 - Judge(s) : R. JAYASIMHA BABU., K. P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R. JAYASIMHA BABU J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 adding a sum of Rs. 32,500 in each of those assessment years. That order is in conformity with what the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had held earlier on April 26, 1982. It has to be noticed that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had been appealed against, and in that appeal, the Tribunal had after setting aside that order, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. In the fresh assessment made for the assessment year 1975-76, the amount added was Rs. 32,500. The assessee challenged the reassessments made for these years, viz., 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. Though the appeal was unsuccessful, on further appeal the Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention with regard to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in holding that the reopening of the assessment for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 under section 147(a) of the Act is correct, valid, and is not time barred?" We are in agreement with what the Tribunal has stated and the view that it has taken with regard to the validity of the reopening of the assessment for these two years. The necessary sanction for the reopening had been obtained. The opinion of the appropriate authority regarding the need for the reopening had been recorded as found by the Tribunal. The reopening was clearly not barred by time. As regards the assessee's claim that the reopening was not warranted as the amount of addition was less than Rs. 50,000, though the addition was less than Rs. 50,000 in a year, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
