Self-Assessment Scheme 1984-85

Assessment having once been completed after conscious application of mind and no fresh evidence worth the name or definite information having been brought home nor there existing any, re-opening was unwarranted

Mere change of opinion of Assessing Officer will not justify re-opening the assessment order.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that High Court had failed to appreciate that the assessment having been made under the self-Assessment Scheme 1984-85 read with S.59(1) of the Ordinance the rule laid down in Edulji Dinshaw's case 1990 PTD 155 was not attracted.

Re-opening of assessment in case of self-assessment on basis of definite information that purchase price declared by the assessee for a plot of land was on the low side

Duty of department detailed

"Definite information "

Connotation

Not conceivable that failure of assessee to provide documents within the prescribed period of one month, even if he was prevented by circumstances beyond its control or for sufficient grounds to have delayed the submission of the documents beyond the said period would totally deprive him of the benefit of the Scheme

Income-tax Officer had the power to condone the delay and even if he did not do so, he had the discretion not to exclude the case of the assessee from the benefit of the scheme if it was otherwise entitled thereto under the other provisions of the Scheme

Discretionary power under the statute has to be reasonably exercised and if it was shown that such power had either been arbitrarily exercised or not exercised at all, Constitutional jurisdiction would always be available to correct such misuse or failure to exercise such statutory powers

Comparison of income of individual with last assessed income declared by the Firm (before dissolution) on the basis of turnover/ receipts in order to see if the two bear the same proportion as their receipts/ turnover bear inter se

Assessee having worked in the capacity of an individual, income received by him held, could be compared to that he received as a partner and it was not comparable to the income of the firm.