1999 PLP 2030 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus RAJ KUMAR BAFNA
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2030 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 226 I T R 822 |
| Bench Members | B.R. Arora and P. C. Jain, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus RAJ KUMAR BAFNA |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2030 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2030 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 226 I T R 822 bench comprising: B.R. Arora and P. C. Jain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2030 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus RAJ KUMAR BAFNA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Reassessment
Change of opinion is not a ground for reassessment
Tribunal was justified in holding that reopening of assessment was bad in law
No question of law arises
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 &
256. Held, dismissing the application to direct reference, that the reassessment proceedings had been initiated merely on a change of opinion by the successor-Assessing Officer. The Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment was not valid. No question of law arose from its order. A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC) fol. Sandeep Bhandawat for the Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
B.R. ARORA, J.
The Revenue, by this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally right in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby holding that the reopening of assessment was bad in law?" The Tribunal refused to refer the case on the ground that it was merely a change of opinion by the successor-officer. The Assessing Officer allowed 30 per cent. investment allowance under section 30 of the Act to the assessee for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The successor Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that once the net profit rate has been applied, there was no justification in allowing the deduction for interest; secondly, the rate of depreciation on rig machine should be 15 per cent. and not 30 per cent. as allowed in the original assessment and, thirdly, the condition for allowing investment allowance has not been fulfilled by the assessee. The grounds, on the basis of which the successor-Assessing Officer reopened the assessment, are merely on the basis of the opinion which he holds and which is contrary to the opinion of the predecessor-Assessing Officer. It has been held by the Supreme Court in A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285, that the view taken by the predecessor was not correct, cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment. Since it is a change of opinion by the successor-Assessing Officer, the Tribunal was, therefore' right in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal was also justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act which was moved by the Revenue for stating the case and referring the question of law. Since no referable question of law arises in the present case, the application under section 256(2) of the Act, filed by the Revenue, has got no merit and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and the same is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./1946/FC Application dismissed.