RAMA RAO T Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three writ petitions arise under the IT Act, 1961. Tallam Rama Rao is the assessee in all the three cases. He averred earlier to the impugned proceedings, that the ITO, Rajahmundry, was ordered not to reopen assessment orders by the Income tax Tribunal on March 22, 1983, in I.T.A. Nos. 718 to 721 /Hyd/ 1982. The assessment order for 1975 76 was concluded on March 5, 1976 ; 1976 77 order was concluded on September 30, 1977, and 1977 78 on October 28, 1978. Notwithstanding the order of the Tribunal, it is complained that the ITO, in the impugned proceedings, is seeking to reopen the orders.

(2.) WE have informed the assessee that it is inexpedient to decide the common question raised under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The assessee argued that the issues raised involve the jurisdiction of the ITO. Further, it was urged that, in view of the order of the Appellate Tribunal of March 22, 1983, the ITO should be interdicted from reopening the three assessment orders. We are of the view that the question raised is not one of jurisdiction. The question may touch upon estoppel. As to estoppel, we hold that no case is made out by the assessee for interference by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We now state the facts and reasons for arriving at that conclusion. Rama Devi is the daughter of the assessee. She was married while minor, on April 7, 1972, in Madde family. She is now called M. Rama Devi. She was inducted in two partnership firms where the assessee is a partner. One of the two is Durga Stainless Steel Stores. The partnership firm was formed on April 15, 1972.

(3.) THE Tribunal, in the former proceedings, held: "The Allahabad High Court held that the information that has come to the possession of the ITO from the assessment of the firm cannot be regarded as information from a formal source. It would only amount to a fresh look on the facts already on record, and since it was not open to the ITO to have a fresh look and change his opinion, it was held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid." In the impugned proceedings, on December 8, 1986, under cl. (a) of s.147, the ITO is seeking to reopen the proceedings on the ground that the assessee "failed" to disclose the income of the minor daughter which he was obliged to disclose under Chapter V, Part I, as per the form and as required in (B) of column 12. In view of the order of March 22, 1983 of the Tribunal, the assessee asserts that the ITO has no jurisdiction, and, therefore, a writ of prohibition is sought by the assessee under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The assessee urged that it is far more efficacious on the above facts to quash the proceedings by this Court than for the assessee to work out relief in the hierarchy of appeals and by reference to this Court. The Revenue averred that the assessee failed to disclose particulars of income relating to the minor in regard to the three assessment years. The ITO as required under cl. (a) of S. 147 recorded reasons for reopening the three assessments and served the impugned notices. In these circumstances, the ITO is within his power to reopen the proceedings as the issue raised now was not determined in the earlier proceedings.