TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of garments. It also exports garments to foreign countries. Originally, the assessment of the assessee was made on a total income of Rs. 15,810. The total turnover of the assessee was of Rs. 15,87,736. Sales within India were for Rs. 6,22,144 and the exports were for Rs. 9,65,592. Hence, the export turnover was 60.82 per cent of the total turnover. The assessee had claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 54,574 under s. 35B on account of export market development allowance. The assessee had submitted two Annexures. In Annexure-I, the assessee furnished details of foreign travel expenses and telephone calls made to foreign countries. The expenditure came to Rs. 48,881` and weighted deduction under s. 35B was claimed in respect of this expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eassessment before the AAC. The contention of the assessee before the AAC was that the reassessment was invalid, as the conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction under s. 147(b) were not satisfied. It was stated that the assessee had given all the material facts after the consideration of which the ITO had allowed weighted deduction under s. 35B as claimed by the assessee. It was contended that a mere change of opinion on the part of the ITO on the same set of facts would not entitle the ITO to proceed under s. 147. The AAC agreed with the contention of the assessee and cancelled the reassessment. The Department has felt aggrieved by this action of the AAC and has now come up in appeal before us. The contention of the Department is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation ' for purposes of s. 147(b) and reassessed the income on that basis. It was held by the Supreme Court that the opinion of the audit party on point of law could not be regarded as 'information' enabling the ITO to initiate reassessment proceeding under s. 147(b). The Supreme Court held that since the ITO, when he made the original assessment, has considered the provisions of ss. 9 and 10 of the IT Act, 1922, any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on the material already considered by him. The Supreme Court held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give the ITO the power to reassess. 4. Following this d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
