INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS K.L. SRIHARI (HUF)
2002 P T D 522
[250 I T R 193]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. C. Agrawal, S. Saghir Ahmad and M. Srinivasan, JJ
INCOME-TAX OFFICER and another
versus
K.L. SRIHARI (HUF) and others
Petitions for special leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.21273 to 21276 of 1995, decided on 25/03/1998.
(Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for Special Leave to Appeal against the, judgment and order, dated December 6, 1989 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.792, 768, 747 & 748 of 1989).
(a) Income-tax---
----Reassessment---Fresh order of assessment of entire income of assessee---Effect---Original assessment order gets effaced---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.147.
(b) Income-tax---
----Reassessment---Fresh assessment---Interest for delay in filing return---Interest on deficiency in advance tax payment---Liability---Effect of fresh assessment order on---Supreme Court---Question not considered---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.139(8), 147 & 215.
Held, on the facts, that on reopening of the original assessment order and making a fresh order of assessment of the entire income of the assessee, the earlier assessment order was effaced by the subsequent order.
I.T.O. v. K.L. Srihari (HUF) (1992) 197 ITR 694 affirmed on different grounds.
CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC) and Jaganmohan Rao (V.) v. CIT and EPT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) ref.
Ranbir Chandra, Anil Srivastava and B: Krishna Prasad, Advocates for Appellants.
Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Ashok Kulkarni and Ms.. Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocates with him) for Respondents.
ORDER
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 under section 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 (V.) v. CIT and EPT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) and the observations in the said case came tip for consideration before two? Judge Benches of this Court in ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad (1989) 176 ITR 529 and in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 and that there is a difference in the views expressed in said later judgments.
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 under section 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.
M.B.A./1054/FC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.