9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in the immovable property held by the firm? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration is not validly reopened under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?" The assessment order relates to the year of 1974-75. The original assessment was framed on November 3,1974. In the original assessment exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act of 1957 was allowed to the assessee, i.e., 1/3rd interest of the assets of the assessee-firm which includes land and building belonging to the firm. Thereafter, notice for reopening the assessment was issued and after considering the submissions, an assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in reopening, the Wealth-tax Officer has wrongly mentioned section 17(1)(b) of the Act of 1957. The reopening was under section 17(1)(a) of the Act of 1957. Mere mentioning of wrong section does not vitiate reopening proceedings or the order. For that, he placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Lok Nath and Co. v. CWT [1996] 217 ITR 310 (SC). He further submits that if the finding of fact arrived at by the earlier officer is wrong while the original assessment was made, the subsequent Assessing Officer can reopen that assessment order under section 17(1)(b) of the Act of 1957 and that constitutes "information". He relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT v. Smt. Arundhati Balkrishna Trust [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in any internal audit organisation of the Income-tax Department; it recognises it in those authorities only which are specifically authorised to exercise adjudicatory functions. Nor does section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971, envisage such a power for the attainment of the objectives incorporated therein. Neither statute supports the conclusion that an audit party can pronounce on the law, and that such pronouncement amounts to 'information' within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." On relook of the same material or on audit report, the Income-tax Officer is not justified to reopen the assessment as that does not constitute "information" within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
