Supreme CourtFull Bench(1998) 03 SC CK 0045

Income Tax Officer and Another vs K.L. Srihari and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 25 March 1998 · Citation: (2001) 250 ITR 193

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Saghir Ahmad, J · S. C. Agrawal, J · M. Srinivasan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 21273,74,75,76 of 1995

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 292 words
1.

By order dated November 19, 1996, these special leave petitions have been directed to be placed before the three-judge Bench because it was felt that dissonant views have been expressed by different Benches of this court on the scope and effect of reopening of an assessment u/s 147 of the income tax Act, 1961. It has been pointed out before us that the matter has earlier been considered by a Bench of three judges in V. Jaganmohan Rao and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax, Andhra Pradesh, and the observations in the said case came up for consideration before two judges' Benches of this court in Income Tax Officer, Azamgarh and Another Vs. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad, and in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd., and that there is a difference in the views expressed in said later judgments.

2.

We have heard Shri Ranbir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the original assessment order dated March 19, 1983, as well as the subsequent assessment order that was passed on July 16, 1987, after the reopening of the assessment u/s 147. On a consideration of the order dated July 16, 1987, we are satisfied that the said assessment order makes a fresh assessment of the entire income of the respondent-assessee and the High Court was, in our opinion, right in proceeding on the basis that the earlier assessment order had been effaced by the subsequent order. In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question that is raised and the same is left open. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.