TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorporated in the year 1965 with the object of carrying on business in fabrication of chemical equipments and structural engineering. The petitioner built its shed at Kalva and purchased various machineries, the total value of which was Rs. 2,05,482. As the factory was under construction, the petitioners used the machineries by taking contracts of structural work. The factory building was compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ITO passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1974-75 on June 27, 1975. The deductions under s. 80J were not granted on the ground that the liabilities far exceeded the assets. The petitioner carried an appeal before the AAC, but the same ended in dismissal by order dated July 27, 1976. Further appeal to the Tribunal was allowed and the ITO was directed to grant relief under s. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment years had escaped assessment. The petitioner was called upon to deliver the returns of income within thirty days. The petitioner informed respondent No. 1 that he had no jurisdiction to issue the notice as the condition precedent for issue of such notice did not exist. Respondent No. 1 was also called upon to disclose the reasons which led him to believe that the petitioner's income had es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, it should be concluded that the notices were issued without compliance with the condition precedent for issuance of such notices. The submission of the learned counsel is correct and deserves acceptance. It is now well settled that the power to issue notice cannot be exercised unless the ITO is satisfied that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee in failing to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the relevant particulars were furnished by the assessee and the ITO decided to issue notice under s. 148 of the Act merely because of a change of opinion. It is now well settled that mere change of opinion does not entitle the ITO to exercise powers under s. 148 of the Act. The initiation of proceedings by respondent No. 1, therefore, was clearly without jurisdiction and are required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
