9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elivered by Madan B. Lokur J.—The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated january 3, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "G" in I. T. A. No. 2336/Del/2001 relevant to the assessment year 1990-91. 2. The assessee had filed its return of income and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on May 27, 1992. The Assessing Officer allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cised his power to issue a notice to the assessee to reopen the assessment. 6. In an appeal before us under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it has been contended on behalf of the Revenue that no opinion has been expressed by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment and in the absence of any opinion having been expressed by him there is no question of a change of opinion by a sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n agreement with the view expressed by the Madras High Court in view of a decision of the Full Bench of this court. 8. In CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi), the Full Bench observed as follows : "We also cannot accept the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons have not been recorded an analysis of the materials on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong." 9. In view of the opinion expressed by the Full Bench, we are entitled to assume that the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the entire facts of the case and took a decision when the earlier assessment order was passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l facts necessary for the assessment. If the Assessing Officer chose not to investigate the facts then, as pointed out by the Full Bench, it would "amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong." 12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 13. The appeal is dismissed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
