TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside by the Tribunal and the matter of examining the validity of reassessment proceedings was restored to his file. Pursuant to that, the learned CIT(A) took up the hearing only against the validity of the initiation of reassessment as directed by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 31st March, 2005. In the fresh proceedings, he took note of the fact that the AO has recorded reasons for reopening on 16th July, 1990, which read as under: "Since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration, notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 issued to the assessee. The escaped income exceeds Rs. 50,000." It was claimed on behalf of the assessee that he had furnished return under the Amnesty Scheme prior to the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is observed from p. 17 of the paper book, being copy of the order-sheet entry of the AO for the year under question that the notice under s. 148 was issued on the ground that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year in question. The said reasons have been extracted above verbatim. From here, it becomes clear that the only reason for issuance of notice under s. 148 was that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year. As against this, it is found that the return was filed by the assessee for the relevant year under Amnesty Scheme on 31st March, 1987 declaring net taxable income at Rs. 11,489. Copy of ack....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee had not furnished any return prior to the issuance of notice under s. 148 for these three years. In the same manner, the AO issued notice under s. 148 after recording similar reasons on 16th July, 1990. The learned CIT(A) upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the assessee had not furnished return of income for this year and the asst. yr. 1985-86 was already reopened and on the belief that the income of the assessee for these years exceeded the total income chargeable to tax and for asst. yr. 1984-85 return showing income of Rs. 17,880 plus agricultural income exempt to the tune of Rs. 10,000 was already filed and assessed also under s. 143(1). 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limit, then there is no need to file the return. Now, it is to be seen that what evidence was available with the Revenue to draw a conclusion or even infer that the income of the assessee was above the stipulated limit. The learned CIT(A) has noticed a fact that the income of the asst. yr. 1984-85 was shown by the assessee at Rs. 17,880 by way of regular return of income. The learned Authorised Representative has brought to my notice that the determination of income at this level was inaccurate and the proceedings under s. 154 were taken by which the arrears of salary not earlier bifurcated were divided and relief under s. 89(1), was claimed and allowed. Copy of the order under s. 154 is available at p. 5 of the assessment order in which it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for asst. yr. 1985-86 was issued for the first time in the year 1993, whereas the notice for the instant year was issued on 16th July, 1990 on the ground that escaped income exceeds Rs. 50,000 and the assessee has not furnished return of income. The issuance of notice for asst. yr. 1985-86 after gap of around three years from the date of notice in the year in question cannot be considered to be a valid ground. What is material to be seen is the validity of reasons recorded as on the relevant date. The subsequent events after recording reasons, which give strength to the reasons already recorded, are of no avail. Thus, in my considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the validity of the initiation of reassessment f....