TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Menon and George K. George for the respondent. JUDGMENT C. N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR J.- The petitioner is challenging exhibit P-5 order whereunder the Commissioner of Income-tax dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the validity of the income escaping assessment completed under section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessee, a Government of Kerala undertaking, filed original return for the assessment year on December 31, 1992, declaring a taxable income of Rs. 50,48,761. This income included business income of Rs. 49,98,241 which was arrived at after claiming a deduction of Rs. 32,27,451 under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground that the mistake committed by the officer in approving the claim in terms of the return cannot be rectified under an income escaping assessment. The specific case of the assessee is that there was no change in the law from the date of original assessment till date of revision of assessment and the revision of assessment effected is only based on a change of opinion of the Assessing Officer which cannot be the basis from income escaping assessment under section 147 of the Act. The assessee, therefore, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the validity of the income escaping assessment completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. Even though reliance was placed on the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR (SC) 182, CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310, Bombay Cycle Stores Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 460 (Bom) ; Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB]. Counsel appearing for the Revenue on the other hand relied on the very same decision relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the impugned order. I do not find the facts in this case are similar to the facts based on which the decision relied on by the assessee are rendered by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. Admittedly, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1) (viii) of the Act and the assessee by making the claim was trying w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court has explained the scope of section 147 in the above decision in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC) in the following words (page 478) "We have to look to the purpose and intent of the provisions. One of the purposes of section 147 appears to us to be to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say 'you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing'. It would be a travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." 4. I am of the view that the above view expressed by the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of this case and if the assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
