High CourtsDivision Bench(2000) 12 MAD CK 0039

Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras High Court · Decided on 20 December 2000 · Citation: (2001) 250 ITR 695

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Jayasimha Babu, J · K. Gnanaprakasam, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Case No. 1453 of 1986 (Reference No. 932 of 1986)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

18 paragraphs · 372 words

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The Tribunal has held that the reopening of the assessment was fully warranted by the observation which had been

made in its order in relation to an earlier assessment year as it constituted infor- mation for the purpose of reopening the assessment made for the

year 1975-76. It had been held by the Tribunal in its order in relation to the assessment year 1974-75 that the excess physical stock could not be

set off against the deficit in the books.

2.

The assessee contends that the Tribunal should not have taken that view, as according to the assessee that order of the Tribunal was not in

existence on the date the original assessment was made for the year 1975-76. The reopening of an assessment need not necessarily be on the basis

of information available on the date or prior to the date of the assessment order. Information, which though subsequently received shows the

defects in the order, can, so long as it does constitute information form the basis for the reopening.

3.

The Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, held that where the Assessing Officer had failed to

take note of the law laid down in a decision of the High Court which had been rendered even prior to the date of the assessment, in proceeding to

reopen the assessment after he became aware of the decision, was permissible. The information in that case was obviously the information received

by the officer subsequent to the order of assessment. That is so in a!l cases of reopening.

4.

In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.V.M. Chellamuthu Pillai and Another, , this court held that the reopening of a wealth-tax

assessment after the assessment was made under the Income Tax Act which brought to light the error in the wealth-tax assessment, was

permissible.

5.

We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us with regard to the correctness of the Tribunal''s order upholding the reopening of the

assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 on the basis of the information contained in the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1974-

75, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.