TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntment of petitioner No.1 in the employment of petitioner No, 2 in a capacity which would render him a " technician " within the meaning of s. 10(6)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act The Central Government accorded approval to the appointment of petitioner No. 1 from December 23, 1970 onwards from time to time. Petitioner No. 1, accordingly, came to India on February 6, 1971, and took up the employment with petitioner No. 2. By reason of the approval, petitioner No. 1 was entitled to exemption under s. 10(6)(vii)(a)(ii) for a period of one year in respect of entire remuneration received by him for one year commencing from February 6, 1971. The Government granted further approval from time to time. Ultimately, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75-76 and 1976-77, as he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment years had escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 147 of the Act. The notice does not recite the grounds or reasons which prompted the ITO to initiate the action. The petitioners have filed the present petition in this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India on April 25, 1980, to challenge the legality of the action of respondent No. 1. Shri Dastur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners' submitted that initiation of proceedings under s. 148 of the Act by respondent No.1 was wholly without jurisdiction. The learned counsel urged that the condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction did not exist and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996. The Supreme Court observed that the opinion of an internal audit party of the Income-tax Department on point of law cannot be regarded as " information " within the meaning of s. 147(b) of the Act for the purpose of reopening the assessment. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that the ITO was clearly in error in initiating the proceedings for reopening the assessment. The submission of Shri Dastur that the mere fact that the ITO was not aware of the circular of the Board is not sufficient to reopen the assessment is also correct. The approval from the Government of India was received subsequent to October 1 of the relevant assessment year, but that was not due to any fault of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
