2022 (8) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2008 and I.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2008 for the assessment year 2000-2001 respectively. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order passed under Section 147 of the said Act despite the fact that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts in the return of the income that SEB price used as indicator of realizable value of Power included an element of tax duty which is really did not have to pay? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the Order passed under Section 14....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee by the assessing officer regarding the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. We find that there were six questions which were asked to the assessee and the assessee has submitted a detailed reply. If that be the position whether the assessment could have been reopened. In our considered view, the Tribunal rightly granted relief to the assessee after noting the factual position, by pointing out that relevant material was placed on record by the assessee when they made the claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act and query was raised and the case was discussed and the assessee had placed material before the assessing officer and it is only thereafter the realisable market value of the power as adopted by the assessee w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....YANJI MAVJI & CO. Versus C.I.T. WEST BENGAL-II, (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 985. In the said decision the word "information" occurring in Section 34(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was considered and explained. We note that the said decision was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1979 (119) ITR 996 and the legal position was explained by stating that the proposition in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. to the effect that a case where income had escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or mistake of the ITO must fall within S.34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act, is stated too widely and travels further than the statute warrants in so far as it can be said to lay down that....