TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (7) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, against the order of the AAC, dt. 10th Jan., 1979, cancelling the reassessment order passed by the ITO on 4th Nov., 1976. 2. The assessee is an individual. He derives share income from the firm, M/s Jamitpura Open Pan Sugar factory and also from plying of one truck. The assessee also has 4 big has of agricultural land, and income from this source was shown at Rs. 3000. According to the ld. ITO, the agricultural income earned by the assessee must have been consumed in meeting the house-hold expenses. The ld. ITO found that the house-hold expenses of the assessee was able to explain the expenditure of Rs. 3000 only. So, in his opinion, the remaining expenses of Rs. 7000 were not satisfactorily explained. The ld. ITO was of the view that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der s. 147 were really already before his predecessor, when he made the assessment of the firm as well as the appellant partner for this year under s. 143(3), and some facts were placed before my predecessor also when the appealed against the assessment order dt. 21st Jan., 1975 in the case of the appellant came before him for consideration and he disposed of the same vide his order dt. 25th March, 1976 under appeal No. 68/75-76. The scrutiny of the order of the ld. ITO dt. 3rd June, 1976 containing reasons for initiating proceedings under s. 147 would clearly support the ld. A/R's contention as it does not contain any material to show that any taxable income had escaped assessment on account of any omission on the part of the assessee. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d he could have well rejected this claim and held at that time that the firm had nothing to do with the joint venture and the appellant was a partner in the joint venture on his own and not as a representative of the firm, and thus, entire income by way of share from this agricultural joint venture was to be considered in his hands for determining the rate payable on his assessable income for the assessment year under this appeal, but he did not do so clearly meant that he was satisfied with the appellant's claim. Anyway, whether he has recorded his wrong satisfaction in law or not a out matter before me and the fact is whether there was or not case of disclosure of the correct primary facts on the part of the appellant in the original asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come. There was no obligation on the assessee to disclose that the agricultural income disclosed by him was not correct. Reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd(3). Thus, the ld. ITO was not correct in starting proceedings under s. 147(a)/148 of the Act. The ld. AAC discussed this point in detail. In my opinion, there is no need to discuss this point again. I may also point out that it was not the case of the Revenue that the facts found by the ld. AAC are not correct. So, the finding of the learned AAC is quite correct, and no interference is called for. 7. The other contention of the Revenue that in the present case s. 147 (b) may be applied because the ld. ITO reopene....