TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment of the assessee was completed on 29-12-1975 on a total income of Rs. 1,25,33,350. In this assessment, the ITO allowed the extra shift allowance of Rs. 1,34,910 in respect of the following electrical machinery and installations : Name of the item Cost Rs. (i) Power cables and transformer 1,49,740 (ii) H.T. cubicles 1,10,901 (iii) C.I. Clad, switch board panels 1,25,072 (iv) Diesel generating set and transformers 8,08,499 (v) Miscellaneous items 62,166 ----------------------- 13,49,094 (sic) ----------------------- 3. Later on, the audit department pointed out that the assessee was not entitled to the extra shift allowance in respect of the aforesaid electrical machinery and installations under item....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id item of the Rules. Aggrieved by this order of the department, the assessee has filed the present appeal. 6. After going through the record and hearing the learned representatives of the parties, we are inclined to partly accept this appeal. 7. The first contention of the learned representative of the assessee before us is that the ITO could not reopen the assessment under section 147(b) on the basis of the objection of the audit department in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996. We are unable to accept this contention of the assessee. All that the Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid case is that the opinion of the audit party on a point of law cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b) on receiving ' information ' that the provisions of the relevant item in question had escaped his notice while making the original assessment, We, therefore, reject the first objection of the assessee. 8. The second contention of the learned representative of the assessee is that the extra shift allowance is not disallowable in respect of all the items of machinery referred to above. This contention is partly acceptable. (a) The assessee is not entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of (i) Transformers, (ii) Switch Board Panels, and (iii) C.I. Clad and Steel Clad (which are stationery plants) under item III (iv). (b) As regards (i) Diesel generating set, and (ii) H.T. cubicles, the Tribunal has already held in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 144B are not applicable to a case under section 147 and as such, the reassessment order passed by the ITO on 20-2-1979 is time barred. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. Ganeshram Nayak [1981] 129 ITR 43. We are unable to accept the contention of the assessee for the simple reason that we do not subscribe to the view that the provisions of section 144B are not applicable to a case under section 147. It has been held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bela Singh Pabla v. ITO [1982] 1 ITD 370 (Delhi) that section 144B applies to all the assessments made under section 143(3) whether by way of original assessment or as a result of reopening of ....