Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act on the basis of information that came from the Tribunal and High Court decisions in another assessee's proceedings.
Analysis: The material that prompted reopening was not a mere change of opinion on facts already considered in the original assessment. The later judicial decisions in the related proceedings supplied the Income-tax Officer with external information showing that the interest received by the assessee was not received as a partner but as a financier. Such information, even if it could have been discovered earlier from the record, was nevertheless information within the meaning of the reopening provision and could validly form the basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment or been under-assessed.
Conclusion: The reopening was valid and the assessee's challenge to jurisdiction failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessment could be reopened on the basis of external information emerging from the related proceedings, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Information for reopening assessment may consist of knowledge derived from an external source, including a judicial decision in another proceeding, even if the underlying facts were earlier available on the record but were not in fact appreciated at the original assessment.