1981 (8) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for this assessment year under section 147(b). The second question is regarding the taxability of the rubber replantation subsidy received by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the rubber replantation subsidy is not income liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. 2. We will take up the second question first. The question has already been considered by this Tribunal earlier in two cases. The first was in the order in IT Appeal Nos. 593 and 594 (Coch.) of 1977-78 dated 27-8-1979. The second is in the order in IT Appeal Nos. 208 and 209 (Coch.) of 1979 dated 25-6-1981. It has been held by the Tribunal in those cases that the rubber replantation subsidy cannot be treated as the income of the recipient assessee for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n should be taken to bring such receipt to tax. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered that the ITO having duly considered the amounts received towards the rubber replantation subsidy while making the assessment and having viewed them as not attracting assessment, had subsequently substituted the view as per the audit opinion to the opposite effect that they were in fact assessable, in the place and stead, of his own view of the matter and, therefore, it was the audit note which constituted information in the case. He did not accept the contention of the ITO that the communication by the audit was a bare communication of an apparent liability to assessment under the law. He considered that there was a mere change of opinion on the part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment of that country and, therefore, could not be a direct authority for the proposition that the subsidy received by the rubber growers in India from the Rubber Board is income assessable to Central income-tax. It is also submitted that on the basis of the noting in the file and also on the basis of the narration given by the ITO in the reassessment order, the information to the ITO for taking action under section 147(b) was only the note of the special audit party and not the opinion of the Law Ministry. It is pointed out that the note of the special audit party communicated to the ITO that the rubber replanting subsidy is income taxable. This communication must be taken to be an interpretation of the relevant provision of law on the ques....