Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (10) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he reassessment proceedings are not valid? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the interest on short-term bank deposits cannot be considered as assessee's income?" The Supreme Court answered question No. 2 in favour of the Revenue on the ground that the said question is concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court directing this court to consider question No. 1. That is how this matter is posted before us. The facts out of which question No. 1 was referred are as follows : The Income- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... opinion of this court. This court, by a judgment dated March 21, 1988, held that the second question was covered by the judgment of this court in R.C. No. 315 of 1982 dated November 18, 1987 (CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663). Following the same the said question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The learned judges observed that in view of the answer to the second question, the first question does not arise. Aggrieved by the said judgment of this court in R. C. No. 36 of 1986, dated March 21, 1988, the Commissioner of Income-tax filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by its judgment dated December 11, 1997, while answering question No. 2 in favour of the Revenue, remand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nformation before the Income-tax Officer for reopening the assessment and, therefore, he could not have invoked the jurisdiction under section 147(b). Learned counsel submitted that for the assessment year 1977-78, the matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal considered the judgment of the Madras High Court in Madras Fertilisers Ltd.'s case [1980] 122 ITR 139 and, therefore, the very same material was before him and on the basis of the very same material, he could not have exercised the power under section 147(a). It is a case where there is a change of opinion and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment was not in accordance with section 147(b). At this stage, it is necessary to refer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... TR 139 (Mad) was available before the Income-tax Officer at the time of making the original assessment. Therefore, we proceed on the basis that these two judgments, namely, the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court, were not before the Income-tax Officer. The next question is whether the said two judgments are relevant for the purpose of considering the issue that arose for consideration. In the judgment of the Madras High Court in Madras Fertilisers Ltd.'s case [1980] 122 ITR 139, the question that was referred by the Tribunal reads as follows : "Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on the dollar deposits was income from any source other than business so that the total interest paid by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A. Firm's case [1991] 189 ITR 285 wherein the Supreme Court held : "...on further research into law, he finds that there was a direct decision holding that category of receipt to be an income receipt. He would be entitled to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) by virtue of proposition (4) of Kalyanji Mavji and Co.'s case [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC). The fact that the details of sales of house properties were already in the file or that the decision subsequently come across by him was already there, would not affect the position because the information that such facts or decision existed, comes to him only much later." In the light of the said decisions, the decision which came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates