TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T [1976] 102 ITR 287 and A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the reassessment made in the case for the assessment year 1980-81?" The brief facts relating to the above reference are as under: The assessee-respondent was doing business in production and sale of cinematography films. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81 and the corresponding accounting year ended as on June 30, 1979. The respondent-assessee by his return of income, on December 5, 1980, admitted a loss of Rs. 1,01,120 and the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) determining the loss at Rs. 91,120 on March 31, 1983. Subsequent to the completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of jurisdiction under section 147(b) was not justified and accordingly, cancelled the reassessment made on the basis of such reopening. The Revenue filed a reference application before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act, requesting the Tribunal, to refer the abovementioned question to this court for its opinion. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the reference application on the ground that there is no question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. Later, the Revenue filed a petition under section 256(2) of the Act, requesting this court to give direction to the Tribunal to refer the matter to the High Court for its opinion. In pursuance of this court order dated March 26, 1998, in T. C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reassessment was not justified. It is also submitted that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material does not give him that power and for this, he relied on the apex court judgment reported in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 to support his proposition. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties. The letter dated March 19, 1983, was placed before us. The said letter was addressed to the Assessing Officer and the same was received by the Officer on March 24, 1983. The letter reads as follows: "In the course of hearing under section 143(2), you doubted the genuineness of the following loan claimed: 1. Mrs. Girija Pakkiriswamy-Rs. 5,000. It has to be pointed out that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer for the purpose of reopening the assessment. The reason was recorded on November 22, 1984, in which it is stated that the said letter was kept separately and omitted to be considered while completing the assessment on March 31, 1983. Before even the said letter was filed by the respondent-assessee, there was enquiry relating to the genuineness of the loan of Rs. 5,000 standing in the name of Mrs. Girija Pakriswamy and the Assessment Officer did not proceed further. After the completion of the assessment, the Officer cannot rely on the fact that they have omitted to consider the said letter which was kept in a different file. We are of the view that the information pertaining to the cash credit of Rs. 5,000 was alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
