TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (11) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court : " ( 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was right in law in reopening the assessment under section 147(b) and in withdrawing the relief under section 80J computed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5,70,419. The assessment for the year 1973-74 was reopened as the audit note alerted the Income-tax Officer that, in the original assessment made on January 20, 1975, the assessing authority had wrongly carried forward a sum of Rs. 5,70,419 which was done in violation of the provisions contained in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 80J. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proviso to section 80J(3) will show that in no case shall the deficiency of the relief under section 80J or any part thereof be carried forward beyond the 7th assessment year. In this view, the Income-tax Officer was held to be right in giving priority and in setting off the development rebate and depreciation allowance and also in withdrawing the carry forward relief under section 80J original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 80J originally granted for the assessment year 1973-74. The Appellate Tribunal also held that, on the facts, it is evident that the audit objection only drew the attention of the Income-tax Officer and it did not amount to an expression of opinion by the audit and, in this view, the reassessment is to be sustained. The above finding of fact by the Appellate Tribunal is not challenged. W....