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 statements recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal constituted "information" within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) so as to justify the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen and reassess the assessee's income for the relevant assessment years.
Analysis: Section 34(1)(b) required the Income-tax Officer to possess information leading to a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment or had been under-assessed. The Tribunal's statements in the earlier appeals disclosed higher assessable profits than those originally taken by the Income-tax Officer, and those statements came into existence after the original assessments. Such material was capable of amounting to information from an external source for the purpose of reopening, and the fact that the information came from the Tribunal did not detract from its character as information under the provision.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's statements did constitute information, and the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to proceed under section 34(1)(b). The answer is in the affirmative and against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent appellate finding disclosing that income was under-assessed can constitute information for reopening under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, even when the information originates from an appellate authority.