SAMPAT RAM BUDHMAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee, by this application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :

(2.) THE assessee, for the asst. yr. 1974-75, was assessed by the ITO on 16th Jan., 1975. The case of the assessee was thereafter reopened as according to the ITO, certain income escaped assessment. After serving a notice on the assessee, the ITO, 'A' Ward, Churu, completed the assessment under S. 142(2)/147(a) of the Act vide its order dt. 18th Feb., 1984. Dissatisfied with the order dt. 18th Feb., 1984, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Jodhpur, who, vide his order dt. 27th Sept., 1985 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the reassessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1974-75 are not sustainable as all the relevant facts were within the knowledge of the ITO when the original assessment were made and simply because these were not shown by the appellant-assessee in his income but known to the ITO, the reassessment proceedings cannot be held to be valid. According to the CIT(A), S. 147(a) cannot be invoked for remedying the patent failure by the ITO while completing the original assessment. He, therefore, cancelled the reassessment proceeding for the asst. yr. 1974-75. The Revenue, aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and the Tribunal, by its judgment dt. 16th Dec., 1986, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 9 : (1986) 159 ITR 624 (SC) : TC 51R.858, A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (SC) 133 : (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC) : TC 51R.1413 and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1991) 98 CTR (SC) 161 : (1991) 191 ITR 662 (SC) : TC 51R.820, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and restored the order of the ITO. The assessee thereafter moved an application under s. 256(1) of the Act for referring two questions of law mentioned in the application for the opinion of the High Court. The learned member of the Tribunal, after considering the arguments, refused to refer the questions on the ground that they are purely of academic interest and observed as under :

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.