1992 (12) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Dy. CIT(A), the assessee arrived inIndiaon1st Oct., 1973and finally leftIndiaon19th Dec., 1974. In the accounting year ending on 31st March, 1985 income of Rs. 45,960 had been declared in the return of income filed on behalf of the assessee by M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. for the asst. yr. 1985-86. Income retuned was accepted at the time of original assessment completed on12th June, 1986. According to the Assessing Officer, information was subsequently received that tax amounting to Rs. 10,838 was borne by the employer, namely, M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. which was perquisite. Since this income escaped in the assessment of or original assessment, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under s. 148 r/w s. 147(b) on11th Aug., 1987. In response to this n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) before whom initiation of proceedings under s. 147(b)/148 was challenged. The CIT(A) was of the view that the proceedings under s. 147(b) have been initiated in accordance with law. 5. Regarding the merits of the case the CIT(A) observed that there was a long time gap between the period in which the income accrued and the period covered by the assessment. That is when the assessee received the income. For this reason the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer taxing the amount of Rs. 10,838 as arrears of salary under s. 15(c). Aggrieved, the assessee has now come up in second appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Since reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b) has been challenged by the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort the impugned order of the authorities below on the point under consideration. 8. I have considered the rival submissions as also the facts on record and have gone through the paper book filed by the assessee. 9. A few facts may be briefly stated. For the period during which the assessee stayed inIndiaas an employee of M/s Modi Rubber Ltd., he received remuneration from the said concern. The assessee's appointment was duly approved under s. 10(6)(viia). The subsistence allowance/overtime allowance amounting to DM 19,825 due to the assessee for the aforesaid period could not be remitted to him for want of Government sanction. So, in the return filed on behalf of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1975-76, a copy whereof is at pages 1 to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment, the ITO,Ghaziabad, had in his possession full facts, materials and information regarding the fact that the amount of Rs. 10,838 had been paid by way of tax by M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. on behalf of the assessee. It cannot, therefore, be said that any information came to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the framing of the original assessment and that it was on the basis of such information received by him that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year under consideration. As has already been demonstrated above, all necessary benefits and information on the basis of which the amount of tax paid on behalf of the assessee has been brought to tax was already avai....