1987 (10) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case, the Tribunal had sufficient basis and is legally correct in holding that there was no 'information' contained in the Revenue audit objection within the meaning of section 17(1) (b) which could justify the reopening of the assessment in view of Supreme Court's decision in 1the case of India and Eastern Newspaper Society [1979] 119 ITR 996 ? 2. Whether the aforesaid Supreme Court's decision had been correctly applied by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case ?" 2. The assessee Jagmohan Singh Kochhar and Sons is a HUF. For the assessment years in question, a question arose regarding the valuation for wealth-tax purposes of the assessee's 1/2 share in house property No. 124, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. The following ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;           25-3-1976                     certificate]  1976-77             1,39,000                       Nil                     28-2-1977                              &nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l v. WTO [1981] 127 ITR 308 annulled the reassessments. 4. The Appellate Tribunal noticed that the assessments were reopened on the basis of the following identical reasons, photostat copies of which had been filed by the department: "Reasons for reopening : The audit has in this case pointed out that the valuation in respect of the property at Sunder Nager stated that the rental income of Rs. 5,000 is not maintainable rent and he has taken his own notional rent of Rs. 44,400 and after deducting outgoings he has taken the net income from property at Rs. 27,808 and multiplied the same by 10 to arrive at a figure of Rs. 2,78,000. The valuer for the assessee has not given any basis for his observation that the rent of Rs. 5,000 is not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the assessee mentioned that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had appointed an official receiver in view of the dispute between the assessee and the co-owner and the official receiver was managing the property and receiving the income therefrom and making the necessary expenditure and therefore, he was stated to be responsible as a representative assessee and therefore, the value declared was 'Nil'. However, the WTO, following the assessment for the preceding assessment year, took the value at Rs. 1,39,000. On these facts the Appellate Tribunal took the view that there was an enquiry and application of mind on the part of the WTO even at the time of the original assessments. The Appellate Tribunal noticed that the audit had pointed out tha....