Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: THANTHI TRUST
Court Name: Supreme Court of India Judge(s): A. M. Ahmadi, I. S. P. Bharucha, K. S. Paripoornan Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs THANTHI TRUST Case No.: Tax Reference Case No,13 of 1982, Date of Judgment:1995-04-20 Reported As: 1996 PTD 922 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' This is a direct reference under section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The two questions which are referred for our decision read as under: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding the reassessm ent under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot include items already barred under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly in deleting the six additions made in the reassessment for the assessment year 1959-60? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is justified in drawing a distinction between items falling under sections 147(a) and 147(b) and in deleting the items of additions that could be brought under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ' Having heard counsel and having noticed the facts, counsel for the Revenue fairly concedes that on the facts as established, both the questions must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue quite apart from the fact that they are so answered in the decision of this Court As ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad (1989) 176 ITR 529. In view of the above me answer both the questions in the affirmative, i,e,, against the Revenue and dispose of the reference accordingly with no order as to costs.
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.