TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellate stage that the reopening of the assessment is justified under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) If the second question is answered in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 75,417 received by the assessee, being his share of the difference between the market value of the properties of the Ernakulam firm and their book value, on his retirement from the said firm on November 25, 1970, is not liable to be taxed under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated September 13, 1976, brought the amount to tax under the head " Capital gains ". The assessee appealed against that order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, reversing the order of the Income-tax Officer, held that the assessment was not liable to be reopened under section 147(a) as the assessee had made full disclosure of all relevant facts at the time of the assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner further held that neither on the sum of Rs. 65,000 nor on the sum of Rs. 75,417 was any tax attracted under section 45 as both the amounts were realised by the assessee on his retirement from the firm within the meaning of section 47(ii). The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessment was rightly re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Tribunal to hold that the reopening was justifiable under clause (b) as well. The very fact that the assessee had recourse to section 230A clearly shows that it was the case of the assessee that the property in question was one which was held by him as co-owner and that it was not part of the partnership assets. The assessee had also filed returns under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, disclosing the amount realised by relinquishment of his right as co-owner in respect of the 13 cents in question. But when the assessee filed his returns under the Income-tax Act on January 15, 1971, he failed to disclose the receipt of income by way of capital gains by reason of the relinquishment. It is not correct, as stated by the Appellate Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
