1986 (2) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ps of Supreme Court have held as under: "Held, that the opinion of the audit party on a point of law could not be regarded as "information" enabling the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings under s. 147(B). The ITO had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of ss. 9 and 10 of the Indian IT Act, 1922. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him." "The proposition in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Co. (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) to the effect that a case where income has escaped assessment due to "over sight, inadvertence or mistake" of the ITO must fall within s. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (2) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT (1975) 35 ITR 1 (SC). (3) Sakarlal Balabhai vs. ITO Investigation & Ors. (1975) 100 ITR 97 (Guj). (4) 138 ITR 523. (5) Shri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1977 CTR (Mad) 96 : (1978) 111 ITR 562 (Mad) (6) Kamal Chand vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 128 ITR 290 (MP). (7) (1981) 126 ITR 622. It was argued that the report of the audit party in this case on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was on issue of law and this report could not form the basis for reopening the assessment and could not act as an information. He stated that according the decided case laws, there should be an information which came to the possession of the ITO after the completion of the earlier assessment and that ....