AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (9) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, namely : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding the proper construction of section 280U of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was 'information' within the meaning of the term as used in section 147(b) of the said Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer validly initiated and completed reassessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether law prescribes any period of limitation for making additional deposit under section 280U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee vali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....120. He deducted the said amount from the assessee's professional income and computed the tax payable by her at Rs. 19,490. On December 5, 1968, the ITO issued a notice demanding the balance amount of annuity deposit, namely, Rs. 57,620, and this was sent along with the demand notice for the payment of tax as determined by the ITO. We are informed that the assessee immediately paid the balance amount of annuity deposit. The ITO imposed a penalty on the assessee for non-payment of part of the annuity deposit. Against the levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. The AAC by his order dated March 5, 1969, held that the penalty was not warranted and cancelled the order of the ITO. We are told that the AAC added a footnote....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wance of annuity deposit payable under s. 280-0 of the said Act of Rs. 32,680. The ITO accordingly directed that the tax payable should be worked out on this footing and a demand notice sent for the amount. Aggrieved by the action under s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as well as the final order of the ITO, in pursuance of the notice of reassessment, the assessee carried the matter to the AAC. The AAC rejected the assessee's contention that action under s. 147(b) was not warranted. He also rejected the other contentions holding that the annuity deposit which was originally allowed by the ITO had not been paid by the assessee before the regular assessment was completed. He held, therefore, that the ITO was right in withdrawing the credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esenting the assessee before it that the discussion before the Tribunal and the submissions were based on the material as was then available. As a result of directions given by us, Mr. Jetly has produced for our perusal, copies of the orders of the AAC dated March 5, 1969, containing the footnote as also the subsequent letter dated March 23, 1969, of the Addl. ITO, Headquarters, from which letter we have already extracted paragraph 2 in the earlier portion of our judgment. Similarly, the note made by the ITO on July 2, 1969, has been shown to us. This note clearly suggests that the action was taken by the ITO in pursuance of the directives of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The said note was also not available to the Tribunal. We will re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AAC. We are not obliged to go into the question whether such a footnote at the end of, or any observation in the body of, the appellate order may or may not constitute information which will justify reassessment proceedings and action under s. 147(b). We have in this case clear evidence that the action was initiated in pursuance of the directives of the Commissioner, which directives the ITO was obliged to follow and which directives cannot be equated with information as contemplated under s. 147(b). If that be so, we would be required to uphold the decision of the Tribunal, when it came to the conclusion (to be found in paragraph 9 of the appellate order of the Tribunal) that the ITO was not in possession of any information in consequen....