income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. K.L. Srihari and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....that they faced on missing of the earning member. that being the position, this is not a fit case for exercising supreme courts jurisdiction in appellants favour. - 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......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. jagan mohan rao v. cit and ept : [1970]75itr373(sc) and the observations in the said case came up for consideration before two judges' benches of this court in ito v. mewalal dwcirka prasad : [1989]176itr529(sc) and in cit v. sun engineering works p. ltd. : [1992]198itr297(sc) and that there is a difference in the views expressed in said later judgments.2. we have heard shri ranbir chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and shri harish n. salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. 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. Jagan mohan Rao v. CIT and EPT : [1970]75ITR373(SC) and the observations in the said case came up for consideration before two judges' Benches of this court in ITO v. Mewalal DwcirKa Prasad : [1989]176ITR529(SC) and in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. : [1992]198ITR297(SC) and that there is a difference in the views expressed in said later judgments.

2. 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.