1985 (2) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come-tax Act, 1961, was invalid and illegal in law and thereby cancelling the assessment ? " The Tribunal has refused to make a reference on the ground that no question of law arose. The real point in issue now is whether this controversy regarding the application of section 147(a) of the Act was decided as a question of fact. The circumstances of the case have been narrated in full by the Tribunal. The assessee had certain deposits received from hundi bankers whose addresses and names were disclosed at the time of the original assessment and also confirmatory letters were furnished. The assessment was made accepting the deposits as genuine. The controversy now is : Are there grounds for reopening the assessment in accordance with law....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... There is no evidence to show that Gopal Dass Manohar Lal was a mere name-lender. The only evidence made available to us is his confessional statement which we have already analysed above. Even such statement is missing in the case of Afghan Fruit Co. and there is not even an iota of evidence implicating the remaining two parties. " It may be mentioned that earlier in the order, the following observations were made regarding Gopal Dass Manohar Lal: " Manohar Lal Gopal Dass clearly admitted that he had income of Rs. 3,600 from brokerage which he had earned by arranging finances to different parties. In other words, the fact that he had acted as a broker for obtaining finances for the parties could not be doubted. He, of course, further....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opening of assessments is so well-settled that it is too late in the day for the Department to contend that mere suspicion can permit the Income-tax Officer to set aside the previous assessment at his will and to substitute any other assessment he feels like on mere suspicion. It was contended by counsel for the assessee that here there was no change in the primary facts and virtually the same material was being treated differently by the Income-tax Officer and hence no question of law arose being either not a question of law or being so settled not to deserve being referred once again to this court. Learned counsel for the Department has cited a number of cases, but the strongest case was ITO v. Mahadeo Lai Tulsyan [1978] 111 ITR 25 ....