2000 (6) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the course of revenue audit, it was found that exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act was wrongly allowed inasmuch as that the house at Moti Katra, Agra, was shown as one residential house whereas in the wealth-tax record, two houses numbering 9/73 and 9/78 were shown separately. Show-cause notice for reopening of assessment was issued accordingly. The fresh assessment was made by ACED allowing exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act for one house only. The assessee objected against the reopening of the case under s. 59 of the ED Act, before ACED. It was claimed that audit information was no information. It was only an opinion. The assessment has been reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. It was also claimed that two mu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rgued by learned counsel that reopening of the assessment on the basis of audit information is invalid as has been held by Bombay High Court in the case of CED vs. Bank of India (1992) 102 CTR (Bom) 62 : (1992) 192 ITR 606 (Bom). In its order, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that opinion of the internal audit party not based on any fact or legal pronouncement, does not constitute information that property chargeable to tax, escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 59(b) of the ED Act. The reassessment based on such information was invalid. The learned counsel further sated that this view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 190 : (1979) 119 ITR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rounds Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the accountable person had challenged the reassessment order insofar as the exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the Act was concerned. It was argued by learned counsel that both the houses were one residential unit. It was claimed that both the houses are situated in front as well as back portion and after these were purchased, both were combined and made one residential unit. Both the units which were originally having two numbers, are within the one boundary. It was argued that this was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Chaudhan. It was argued in the said case also that there were two properties bearing two distinct municipal numbers. It was held that as....