TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reassessment order?" The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessment was completed on February 21, 1975. After completion of the assessment order, the audit party has pointed out that Rs. 69,338 have wrongly been allowed as the amount of Rs. 69,338 has not been incurred against the payment of leave, salary and pension to the employees. When this information was passed on to the Income-tax Officer, he recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment as under: "The local audit party has raised an objection that the assessee-company has debited the profit and loss account by an amount of Rs. 69,338 for leave, salary and pension contribution. This item has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., therefore, the reopening is not valid and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal. While considering the submissions in para. 4, the Tribunal has given reason treating the information passed on to the Assessing Officer that it is nothing but a change of opinion, therefore, it does not constitute an information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act. The relevant para. 4 of the Tribunal's order reads as under: "The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed in the impugned orders obviously, while making the original assessment dated February 21, 1975, the Income-tax Officer proceeded on the basis that the sum of Rs. 69,338 represented an expenditure incurred by the appellant during the relevant previous year in respect of leave, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me that the claim was allowable. On these facts, it cannot be said that the Income-tax Officer was made aware about the correct position of the debit only by the audit party. As the debit is such which involves secondary inquiry about the liability in our view it is implied that the Income-tax Officer having allowed the claim, kept in view the whole balance-sheet which reflects the provision. That being so, it is clear that the Income-tax Officer was fully aware of the correct position of the provision made for pension. Thus it is not a case of valid information but of change of opinion. The matter viewed from any angle, the only conclusion to be arrived at is that no information was given by the audit party within the meaning of section 14....