Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b) was not valid ?

High Court Of Madras

CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank

Sections 35B, 147(b)

Asst. Year 1976-77

N.K. Jain, Actg, C.J. & K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

T.C. No. 291 of 1988

29th August, 2000

Counsel Appeared

C.V. Rajan, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee

JUDGMENT

N.K. JAIN, ACTG, C.J. :

The above tax case is at the instance of the CIT, Tamil Nadu-I, Madras, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, as the Tribunal has stated that case and referred the following questions of law for the asst. yr. 1976-77 :

“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b) was not valid ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the gross interest payment which had been incurred in the foreign branches was entitled to deduction under s. 35B ?”

Learned senior standing counsel for the Department submits that so far as the first question of law is concerned, the Tribunal has held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the authority and without jurisdiction, which being a question of fact, may be answered in the affirmative and against the Department. Learned counsel further submits that the controversy regarding and second question of law, was set at rest by this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 314 (Mad), and this question may also be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

In view of the above submissions and for the reasons mentioned in the decision cited supra, both the questions of law referred to us are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The tax case is disputed ofaccordingly. No costs.

[Citation : 247 ITR 572]

Malcare WordPress Security