COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI Vs. RAVINDRAN PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are at the instance of the revenue and the appeals were admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) Before we delve upon the facts in issue and consider the same, we may point out that all the three substantial questions of law relate to one issue, namely, when the annual returns of income filed by the assessee were accepted by the assessing officer under Section 143(1) thereby forming an opinion and when such orders were later on challenged, whether the Tribunal could interfere with such orders on the ground that there was a change of opinion to reopen the assessments. Once this issue is resolved, it will consequently resolve all the questions of law raised in these appeals.

(3.) The respondent-assessee filed the returns of income for the assessment years 1995-96 to 2000-01 showing the total loss of Rs.3,36,550/-, Rs.5,49,810/-, Rs.5,98,820/-, Rs.8,64,590/-, Rs.12,73,640/- and Rs.17,38,995/- respectively and the same were accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, notices under Section 148 were issued and the assessee explained that the original returns filed may be treated as the returns in response to the notices under Section 148. Thereafter, notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee requesting for furnishing certain information. Only thereafter, the assessee filed the details in regard to the information called for. The assessing officer went into the issue with reference to the materials and factually rendered a finding regarding the Will and the corresponding share of 50% income received on the basis of the said Will. Consequently, the assessing officer did not find any merit in the assessee's reply as to the 1/3rd share admitted in the returns according to the oral desire of late Mrs.Kanti Prabhakar. These orders were questioned before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII, who confirmed the said finding of the assessing officer. However, when the matter was taken to the Tribunal, it found that inasmuch as the reopening of the assessments was made on the basis of change of opinion and nothing else, the reassessment orders were bad and accordingly, set aside the orders of reassessment. In view of the above legal finding, the Tribunal did not go into the other grounds on merit.