(Appeal by special leave against the judgment and order, dated 23^rd September, 1976, of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No.819 of 1.973. The judgment of the High Court is reported as C.I.T. (Addl.) v. Kamlapat Moti Lal (1977)110 ITR 769 (All.)).

Income-tax---

----Reassessment---Escapement of income from assessment---Expenditure allowed in 1961-62---AAC Holding that it should be allowed for earlier year 1960-61---AAC's order made under 1922 Act---Reassessment under 1961 Act of India to include expenditure wrongly allowed in 1961-62---high Court holding that there was escapement of income assessable to tax in 1961-fit and reassessment was valid---Appeal to Supreme Court by Special Leave-- Dismissed---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.147, 148, 150(1), 153(3), 297(2)(d)(ii).

From the decision of the Allahabad High Court in C.I.T. (Add].) v. Kamlapat Moti Lai (1977) 110 ITR 769, to the effect that the reopening under the 1961 Act for the assessment year 1X1-62 was valid because an expenditure allowed in that year was held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by an appellate order under the 1922 Act, as ought to be allowed in the earlier year, assessment year 1960-61, the appellant-assessee preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that this was not a fit case for interference under Article 136 because the amount claimed as a deduction had already been allowed in the assessment year 1960-fit and the appellant-assessee was virtually seeking in this appeal deduction of they same amount in the assessment year 1961-62 as well and this was inequitable and uncalled for.

Decision of the Allahabad High Court in C.I.T. (Addl.) v. Kamlapat Moti Lal (1977) 110 ITR 769 affirmed.

Raja Ram Agarwal, Senior Advocate (Pramod Swarup with him) for the Appellant.

Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Msl. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for the Respondent.

ORDER

This is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution for the simple reason that the amount which is being claimed as a. deduction by the assessee had already been allowed to him in 1960-61, Virtually, what he is seeking in this appeal is the deduction for the same amount in 1961-62. The claim is un-equitable and uncalled for. In the circumstances, the civil appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

M.B.A./1410/TAppeal dismissed.