COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DEVENDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 8th Sept., 2005. The appeals relate to different assessment years, starting from 1994 -95 to 1998 -99. The appeals were admitted on different dates, by framing the common questions of law being: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in adjudicating the validity of reasons accorded by the AO at the time of assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 with reference to the ultimate finding reached by the AO notwithstanding holding that the information received from DDI constitutes valid material on the basis of which required satisfaction can be reached by the AO for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was Justified in quashing the reassessment and the consequential additions made therein holding that the passing of order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 assessing the other income based on assessee's alleged statement before the Dy. Director of IT because it did not form part of reasons recorded under Section 148?

(2.) THOUGH two separate questions have been framed, but in substance they comprehend the common question. The precise controversy is, that reasons were recorded for assuming certain income to have escaped assessment, however during reassessment proceedings, that income was not found to have escaped assessment, but then on the basis of certain other material, certain other incomes were found to have escaped from assessment to tax, and therefore, reassessment had been made. As such, the question precisely is, as to whether in case where despite existence of material on record, to arrive at a conclusion about escapement of certain income from assessment, in the reassessment proceedings where such income is not found to have escaped assessment, it is open to the AO to complete the reassessment proceedings, by finding some other income, to be liable to be subjected to tax, which is found by the AO, in the reassessment proceedings, to have been required to be taxed in the original assessment.

(3.) WE have not been shown any contrary view, to have been taken, whether by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, or by any other High Court, so far.