TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (9) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal declined to refer any of the question as in its opinion no question of law arises out of its said order. The three questions of law proposed by the assessee are as under : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer under the provisions of section 147 was not covered by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently, the Commissioner was not precluded from revising the assessment order under section 263 ? 2. Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was 'erroneous' as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). Along with that application, he filed an affidavit dated 19th June, 1974, deposing therein that he had no immovable property nor any bank account anywhere in India and he had maintained himself since his arrival in India on 27th September, 1970, on the income of his inherited lands, situated at his village Adhi. After the receipt of the application, spot enquiries were made by the inspector of income-tax which revealed that the assessee had acquired agricultural land at two places and had also invested money on the renovation of his residential house. Meanwhile, the assessee filed another affidavit dated 31st July, 1974, in which he disclosed the purchase of approximately ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h November, 1974. Subsequently, the CIT by invoking the provisions of s. 263 started proceedings thereunder against the assessee. Ultimately, the CIT set aside the order of the ITO and remanded the case for fresh decision. In appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, it was contended by the assessee that is the proceedings in this case had been started with reference to s. 147, this was a case of reassessment made under that section, and, therefore, in view of cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) s. 263 of the Act, no order could be made against him. The other contentions giving rise to the other two questions were also made, but we are not concerned here with the same, as we are only proposing the reference of question No. 1 to this court. However, the Appel....