9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, the following question of law has been referred to us by the Tribunal for our decision: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 147(b) cannot be invoked in this case and accordingly in cancelling the reassessment made for the assessment year 1972-73 ?" The reassessment referred to in the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uneration paid to the managing director. According to the audit, the commission paid to the managing director was not allowable and, therefore, there had been an excess allowance of Rs. 30,192 while computing the income of the assessee for the relevant year. The Tribunal in appeal, set aside that order of the Income-tax Officer, and in our opinion rightly. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this submission for the Revenue. The relevant provisions of law which had to be looked into at the time of assessment, in so far as the amount to be allowed as a deduction while computing the remuneration paid to the managing director, is concerned, are sections 40(c) and 40A(5). There was no material before the Assessing Officer who made the reassessment to show that these provisions had not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion inadvertently by the Assessing Officer. The reassessment is solely based on the audit party's remarks. These remarks contained the opinion of the audit party as to the proper interpretation of the statutory provisions. As pointed out by the apex court, such opinion of the audit party is not "information" on the basis of which an order of reassessment could be made under section 147(b) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
