TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (6) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s at Sarat Bose Road, a suit against the tenant for vacating the premises in question had been filed and, as such, no rent had been accepted by the assessee since November, 1967. The assessee wrote this letter for the reason that no income was shown under the head " Income from property " in the return of the income for the assessment year 1969-70, though for the assessment year 1968-69 a part of it had been shown. According to the assessee, in the particulars of income with the statement annexed for the relevant year, the assessee had indicated the premises in question and along with that letter it stated the assessee had informed the ITO that there was a dispute with the tenant in respect of the premises in question and, as such, no rent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Controller of Rent. The assessee has filed a suit of ejectment against the tenant and as such it did not include the rent paid by the tenant. As per s. 23(1) the property income is to be considered on deemed basis and as the company follows the mercantile system of accounting, it has escaped assessment. Hence issue notice under sec. 148 to the assessee." On behalf of the revenue it was contended that under s. 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the fact whether rent was being realised from the tenant or not was irrelevant because the rent income was to be assessed on deemed basis and that is the position of law. Counsel for the revenue drew my attention to the observations of this court in the case of Sri Sri Iswar Radha Govinda Jew v.CIT[1972] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the impugned noticed can be sustained under cl. (b) of s. 147of the I.T. Act, 1961. The circumstances under which cl. (b) of s. 147 of the I.T Act, 1961, can be attracted have been the subject-matter of review by several decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts. It is not necessary to refer to most of the decisions. But learned counsel for the assessee drew my attention to certain observations of mine in the case of Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 171 (Cal), where I have held that in order to be information in terms of cl. (b) of s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, it was necessary that it must be knowledge or instructions concerning facts or particulars or as to the law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant had not utilised the entire borrowed money for the purpose of its business but had given interest-free loans to its partners for clearing up their income-tax dues. The ITO reopened the assessment for 1956-57 under s. 34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and disallowed the interest paid. The Appellate Tribunal held that the ITO had merely changed his opinion on the basis of the very materials that were before him when the original assessment was made and that was not sufficient to attract s. 34(1)(b). On a reference, the High Court held that the reassessment was valid in law as the information on the basis of which the officer sought to reopen the assessment was based on subsequent facts as also on the materials of original assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I.T. Act, 1961. As Mr. Justice Chandrachud, as the learned Chief Justice then was, in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Holck Larsen [1972] 85 ITR 467 at page 479 has observed that the distinction consists in a change of opinion unsupported by subsequent information on the one hand and a change of opinion based on information subsequently obtained, on the other. If there is only a mere change of opinion it cannot be a basis of reopening under cl. (a) of s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. My attention was also drawn to the decision in the case of R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537. There the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the views of the audit department would constitute ....