TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax Act, 1922 ? " We are concerned with the assessment year 1959-60. The two questions arise from the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the three assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. As the Tribunal upheld the submissions made on behalf of the assessee for all these three years, the Commissioner wanted a reference for all the three years, but reference was refused for the first two years, i.e., for assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, and the two questions were referred only for the third of the said years, viz., 1959-60. The relevant previous year for that assessment year is the year ended March 31, 1958. A few facts may be stated. The assessee-company is a public limited company established on Novembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 15C. For the first two years, the ITO purported to act under s. 148 read with s. 147(a). For the third year with which we are concerned, the action was under s. 147(b) and the necessary notice was served on the assessee-company on March 28, 1964. For this year, unlike the previous two, the ITO accepted the position that there was no withholding of any facts by the company. This has been expressly mentioned by the ITO in para. 3 of the assessment order in the following words : " There has been no omission, admittedly, on the part of the assessee to disclose the fact as stated above; however, the income has been made the subject of excessive relief and hence the provisions of section 147 of the Act are clearly attracted in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the first two years action was initiated under s. 147(a), action for the third year with which we are concerned was under s. 147(b). He has also ignored the statements made by the ITO in para. 3 of the reassessment order. Both on the propriety of the action under s. 148 and on merits the AAC agreed fully with the ITO. The company appealed to the Tribunal where it succeeded for all the three years. This was under the Tribunal's common order dated March 6, 1968. We will, however, restrict ourselves to the portion of the said order dealing with the assessment year with which we are concerned where action was under s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. According to the Tribunal, for this year, on the ITO's own showing, the assessment was reop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled, at least as far as this court is concerned, that an assessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion. We may refer briefly to the decision given by a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. H. Holck Larsen [1972] 85 ITR 467. This decision was, referred to by the Supreme Court in Kalyanji Mavji Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (seepage 300), where Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali J., speaking for the Supreme Court, expressed the inclination to agree with the view expressed by Chandrachud J. (of the Bombay High Court, as he then was) in H. Holck Larsen's case [1972] 85 ITR 467. H. Holck Larsen's case has been followed subsequently and applied by another Division Bench of this court (to which I was a party) in CIT v. T. C. Dolwani [1978] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
