TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioners made alterations in the standing structures to make it fit for being used as a factory for the production of pharmaceutical products. In March, 1953, the petitioners let out a portion of the land along with the structures thereon in favour of M/s. Geoffrey Manners and Company for a period of five years at the agreed rent of Rs. 8,600 per month. The petitioners were assessed for the first time in the assessment year 1954-55, and the petitioners in their return showed the income from rent received from M/s. Geoffrey Manners and Company as an income from business. The ITO completed the assessment holding that the rent received by the petitioners was from " Other sources " as contemplated by s. 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther sources " by the ITO. The ITO thereafter on March 18, 1978, served a notice under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the petitioner-company and proposed to reopen the assessment for the years 1973-74 to 1976-77. The notice, inter alia, mentioned that the IAC had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the relevant years had escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 147 of the I.T. Act. The petitioners have approached this court to challenge the legality of this notice. Shri Dastur, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submits that the entire relevant material was made available to the ITO for the relevant years and the ITO, having completed the assessment after perusing the material, cannot reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material produced before him, and he cannot fall back upon some objection to reopen the assessment. A somewhat identical question came for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Killick Industries Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 147, and the Division Bench took the view that the ground that the income had not been assessed under the correct heading was a case of mere change of opinion, and that did not entitle the ITO to initiate proceedings for reopening the assessment. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and of this court, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was totally irregular and the impugned notice dated March 18, 1978, is required to be struck down. Accordingly, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
