1990 (6) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Assistant Commissioner was wholly unwarranted and redundant ?" Initially the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65 was made on September 6, 1968, on a total income of Rs. 59,380 which included the amount of Rs. 30,972 representing the income derived from capital gain on acquisition of certain land by the Government and from sale of certain house. The compensation for the acquired land was subsequently enhanced by the District Judge at the instance of the assessee which was upheld in appeal by the High Court. The Income-tax Officer, thereafter, initiated proceedings under section 140A, (sic.) read with section 147(a) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, made an addition of Rs. 16,161 in the income of the assessee by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the only question that required decision was whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147(a) of the Act. Once the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the case under section 147(a) of the Act and the order of reassessment was liable to be quashed, he had no jurisdiction to make any further direction for recomputing the amount of capital gains, because as held by the Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14, such direction was not necessary for the disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Assistan....