2006 (2) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me of the assessee by including Rs. 2,74,627 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of the assessment was barred by time under the proviso to section 147 of the Act ?" 2.Heard Shri K. N. Puntambekar, learned counsel for the appellant and  Shri A. P. Patankar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3.In short and in substance, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether issuance of notice under section 147/148 of the Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for making reassessment for the assessment year in question (1982-83) is legally justified, or not ? All the authorities below, i.e., the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have upheld the notice and in consequen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. When a person, though liable to be taxed, has not been assessed to tax, there is an escapement. Further, although the same person may be taxed both as an individual and as a karta of a Hindu undivided family, the two capacities are intrinsically different units of taxation under the Act. They are treated as different assessees for the purposes of the Act. The Revenue authorities are not precluded from taking appropriate proceedings or to issue a notice for reassessment to another, merely because that income has been assessed in the hands of 'individual' if there is material to show that it is the former and not the latter that should have been assessed under law. The reason is not too far to seek. The scheme of the Act contemplates an as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a note that assessee has already filed the returns from the assessment years 1975-76 to 1984-85 and income of Rs. 28,500 had been assessed for the assessment year 1982-83 on substantive basis and Rs. 2,67,627 was assessed on protective basis for this year. As the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had already deleted addition of Rs. 2,67,627, income of Rs. 28,500 shall be accepted as such. After some adjourn ment on March 2, 1995, Shri Amritlal Jam appeared on behalf of the assessee and requested to supply the reasons for reopening the assessment, which were made available to him and counsel of the assessee read the same. He further submitted that issue has been finally decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal orders in I. T. A. Nos. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s/income was not made by the assessee and hence, notice could be issued. Reasons were shown to the assessee and he replied. These facts are not in dispute as is clear from narration of facts mentioned supra. 8.In these circumstances in our opinion, the authorities below were justified once they record their dissatisfaction to the explanation offered by the assessee in upholding the notice and the reassessment. Indeed, power to reopen the concluded assessment by taking recourse to the twin provisions, namely, section 14 7/148 ibid cannot be challenged by an asses- see except on very limited grounds known to law. In our considered view, none of those grounds could be noticed so as to hold in favour of the assessee. 9 No doubt, placing relia....