Escaped turnover reassessment within limitation upheld, but rectification could not reopen a conscious exclusion or debatable issue.

Reassessment for escaped turnover under Section 6(5) was upheld for the later assessment years because the provision could operate within the prescribed limitation period despite its later insertion. For 2000-01, reassessment failed because rectification is limited to patent errors and cannot be used to reopen a consciously excluded turnover item or a matter requiring fresh adjudication, and the reassessment was also time-barred. The plea to keep recovery in abeyance pending finalisation and recasting of company accounts was rejected because those accounting issues did not affect the tax basis of the hotel receipts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under Section 6(5) could be invoked for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 notwithstanding the later insertion of the provision; (ii) Whether the reassessment for the year 2000-01 could be sustained as a rectification or on the basis of change of opinion; (iii) Whether recovery of the demand should be kept in abeyance until the company accounts were finalised and recast.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under Section 6(5) could be invoked for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 notwithstanding the later insertion of the provision.

Analysis: The reassessment provision was applied within the limitation period for those assessment years. A provision enabling reassessment for escaped turnover can operate for prior years so long as the prescribed period remains alive. The challenge based on retrospectivity therefore did not survive for the years other than 2000-01.

Conclusion: The reassessment for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment for the year 2000-01 could be sustained as a rectification or on the basis of change of opinion.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen an issue requiring adjudication. The turnover item had been consciously excluded in the original assessment, and the attempted reopening involved reconsideration on merits. At the same time, the reassessment for 2000-01 was beyond limitation. Both the rectification theory and the reassessment were therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The reassessment for the year 2000-01 was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether recovery of the demand should be kept in abeyance until the company accounts were finalised and recast.

Analysis: The accounting disputes and directions concerning recasting of accounts affected internal corporate matters and shareholder issues. They did not alter the hotel receipts forming the basis of the tax assessments, which were made on the books as maintained and verified for the relevant years. No ground was made out to suspend recovery on that basis.

Conclusion: The request to keep the demand in abeyance was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was sustained for the later assessment years, annulled for 2000-01, and the ancillary plea for postponement of recovery was rejected, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment provision permitting action for escaped turnover within the prescribed period may reopen an earlier assessment notwithstanding a prior conscious exclusion, but rectification cannot be used to revisit a debatable issue requiring fresh adjudication.

---