1980 (2) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the information at the time of the completion of the original assessment and the reopening of assessment by his successor was only due to a change of opinion on the same set of facts." The CIT (A) held that the appeals before him should have to be allowed on merits and the original assessment restored. He further observed that in the view he had taken it was not necessary to go into the further question whether action under s. 147(b) could be justified on the ground that there was only a change of opinion. He also observed that he did not think that s. 147(b) could be utilised merely to substitute the conclusion of one ITO by another merely on change of opinion. He, however, concluded by saying that issue was at any rate academic. 4. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For Asst. yrs. 70-71 & 71-72, ten per cent was claimed and allowed. The reduction from 10 per cent to 5 per cent was presumably due to the fact that there was practically no trading for the Asst. yr. 72-73 (vide ITO's noting in the P&L a/c of Cochin Branch and a small loss of Rs. 5,229 for Asst. yr. 73-74. But for Asst. yrs. 70-71 & 71-72 there was sizable trading results as shown below warranting abatement of establishment charges. . . 71-72 70-71 Produce sale (Receipts) 19,897 2,00,473 . (Receipts) 3,02,134 5,28,819 In view of the facts there had been practically no trading results for Asst. yr. 72-73 and 73-74, the claim of the proportionate establishment charges at 5 per cent of London estt. Charg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... expense is charged proportionate to the basis of the income. In view of the steep fall in the turnover from Rs. 11,73,445 for Asst. yr. 70-71 to Rs. 1,43,714 for Asst. yr. 73-74 even as per the ITO the proportion from 10 per cent to 5 per cent would appear to be incorrect and not reasonable. Besides, London Office is the Head office and the assessee, its branch office. In view of the fact that there had been no trading activity in the branch even under the recognised method of allocating the expenses, the deduction does not appear to be correct." It is plain from the above audit objection that all the facts relating to the claim were available at the time of the original assessment and were considered by the ITO. It is further seen that....