TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....constitute information under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The questions of law are re-framed as follows: (i) Ought not the Tribunal have held that the re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a mere change of opinion ? and; (ii) Ought not the Tribunal have held that the appellate order relied on by the Assessing Officer to carry out the re-opening would not constitute an information as contemplated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act? 2. Both the assessment years were earlier before this Court in ITR Nos.107 to 110 of 1999. The two questions urged before this Court were as to the entitlement of the deduction under Section 80 HHC and the sustainability of the re-opening carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in appeal was received by the Assessing Officer on 09.03.1990. The said appellate order in the earlier assessment years, was taken as an information as contemplated under Section 147 to proceed with the re-opening. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on a decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.). The dismissal of appeal to the Supreme Court, by the revenue, was in a Civil Appeal in which event, the judgment of the Delhi High Court would stand merged with that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessment year which was considered by the Delhi High Court was 1987-88. The Court found that the appellate order relied on in the final re-assessment order was passed on 27.07.1990, while the re-opening was on 20.04.1990. Hence the appellate order was not the information on which the reopening was initiated. In that case, the re-opening was found to have been attempted on the basis of a tax audit report which was available in the files of the Income-tax officer at the time of original assessment itself. Hence the reopening was a mere change of opinion was the finding. It was held by the Delhi High Court in Paragraph 22 that "...It is one thing to say that the Assessing Officer had received information from an audit report which was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r had made an order on October, 10, 1947, in the proceedings relating to the assessment of income-tax of the assessee that there had been only a partial partition in respect of the movable property (business) of Gurbuxrai. That was certainly on information which came into the possession of the Excess Profits Tax Officer not because of any change of opinion by himself but because of the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the income-tax proceedings. This Court has consistently held that the Income-tax Officer would have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which is in pari materia with section 15 of the Act if he acted on information received from the decision of the superio....