1980 (3) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been assessed to income-tax as such by respondent No. 1. The assessment years involved in these petitions are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner's assessment was made by the predecessor-in-office of respondent No.1 who allowed deductions under ss. 80HH and 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). The petitioner received notices dated July 17, 1978, under s. 148 of the Act for the aforesaid three years for reassessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. A copy of the notice is filed by the petitioner as annex. C to the petitions. The petitioner filed returns under protest. Thereafter, the ITO served on the petitioner a notice dated September 28, 1979, whereby the petitioner was asked to produce documentary evid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s given by respondent No. 1 for the reopening of the assessment for the year 1975-76 are as follows: " In this case the original assessment order was passed under sec. 143(3) dated March 17, 1976, at the total income of Rs. 24,910. While passing the assessment order my predecessor allowed deduction u/s. 80HH at Rs. 9,755 and deduction u/s. 80J at Rs. 7,130. The scrutiny of records by me reveals that the assessee-firm has taken over the business of Atul Ginning Factory which has been considered as an industrial undertaking within the meaning of ss. 80HH and 80J, by the predecessor at the time of assessment from the HUF, M/s. Kamalchand Nanalal, Dhar, during the year under consideration. Therefore, the industrial undertaking does not fulfil ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent No. 1 originally allowed deductions under ss. 80HH and 80J of the Act. No new information appears to have come into the possession of respondent No. 1 which had led him to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment years in question and it was merely a change of opinion which prompted respondent No. 1 to issue the notice for reassessment to the petitioner. In Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v.. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 the Supreme Court has held as follows (p. 1004): " Now, in the case before us, the ITO had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of ss. 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a chang....