9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer had new information in his possession before re-opening the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3). The Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in not considering the fact that in subsequent assessment years, i.e., Assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the Assessing Officer had re-opened the assessments on the very same grounds that if Assessment year 1979-80 which were subsequently dropped vide order dated 17-1-1991. Hence the appellant prays that the re-opening of the above assessment is not justified on the ground that no new information was available with the Assessing Officer which was not there at the time of the assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in adopting the G.P. Rate of 14% which is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears 1984-85 and 1985-86 are at pages 44 and 45 of the APB and these orders are cryptic and no reasons are given for dropping the proceedings. The orders declare only that the proceedings have been dropped. The contention of the assessee before us is that there is no nexus between the seized paper and the assessment for the year 1979-80, as the seized paper did not in any way relate to the transactions of the assessment year 1979-80. So, in the absence of any such nexus between the seized papers and the income disclosed by the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer had no basis or reason for coming to the conclusion that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment or that there had been any failure on the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income-tax Act. For this proposition, he relied upon the following decisions : (1)CIT v. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel [1979] 118 ITR 134 (2)C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 (3)Rattan Gupta v. Union of India [1999] 154 CTR (Delhi) 418 5. We find that the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court cited by the learned DR are in the context of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act relating to acquisition of properties and not to section 147(a) and are distinguishable. Even in the case of Rattan Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court proceeded on its own facts and it held that it cannot be said that there was no material for the formation of the requisite belief for issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
