AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the parties. This matter was referred to this Court at the behest of the assessee to express opinion on the substantial question of law, "whether once a proceeding under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act (for short "Act'') is dropped, a case can be reopened u/s 143 (2)(b) of the Act to verify the correctness or completeness of the return on the same material and thing".
It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the assessee that the proceeding under Sections 147/148 of the Act was dropped and since the assessment was complete and new facts were not detected/found by the revenue authorities to re-open the matter and to re-examine the correctness of the earlier order dropping the proceeding, the proceeding in terms of Section 143(2)(b) of the Act was not maintainable.
From the facts of this case, it appears that the assessment proceeding was completed on 21.12.1987 and thereafter a notice was served in terms of Section 143(2)(b) of the Act disclosing no new facts.
The question, therefore, arises as to whether dropping of the proceeding under Sections 147/148 of the Act would be a bar to reopen the matter on the same set of facts under the provisions of Section 143(2)(b) of the Act.
In the case of Raja Bahadur Vishweshwara Singh of Rajnagar Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, , a Bench of this Court held that it is well settled that though the Income Tax Officer is not bound by res judicata or estoppel by record, yet he can reopen the matter of assessment only when if fresh facts came to light which, on investigation, would entitle the officer to come to a conclusion different from that of his predecessor. The same view was reiterated in the case of Manoo Lal Kedarnath vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 114 IT Rep 884 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan vs. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh reported in 56 IT Rep 234 holding that dropping of the proceeding after completion of the assessment would be a bar to reopen the matter in terms of Section 143(2)(b) of the Act on the same facts.
Undisputedly, in this matter there was no fresh ground or facts to reopen the matter in terms of Section 143(2)(b) of the Act and obviously, therefore, the dropping of the proceeding in terms of Sections 147/148 of the Act would be a bar to reopen the matter.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal propositions as noticed above, the reference is accordingly answered in negative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This disposes of the case.