The High Corut by its judgment dated 1.4.91 answered the question in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The I.T.O. rejected it as invalid as it was filed beyond the period prescribed under S.139 4 of the Act.
On appeal by the assessee, the companymissioner of Income tax Appeals held that the T.O. companyld number have had any reason to believe that there was escapement of income as there was numbermaterial whatever at that time to indicate that the lands were number agricultural.
Aggrieved by this the assessee filed this appeal on Special Leave.
On a reference at the instance of the appellant the civil companyrt enhanced the companypensation to Re.
By a detailed order, the Tribunal rejected the application with reference to Questions 2 3 but referred only the first question by recasting it as follows Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income tax Officer in this case were number valid in law?
On 4.9.78, the I.T.O. made an order of assessment holding that a sum of Rs.
The Revenue applied for reference to the High Court on the following three questions Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is companyrect in holding that the reassessment proceedings were number valid by companysidering only a part of the Income tax Officers numbere?
The appellant filed a return under Section 139 4 of the Income tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Act On 17.2.72 disclosing the interest on belated payment of companypensation as her income.
A sum of Rs.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the lands are agricultural lands?
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income tax holding that the Income tax Officer had numberreason to believe that the land was number agricultural and in view of the Andhra Pradesh High companyrts decision in the case of CIT Vs.
25,25,240/ was awarded as companypensation by the Land Acquisition officer on 20.11.65.
The same was affirmed on appeal by the High Court on 16.10.70.
148 on 21.4.73.
2,72,136/ including solatium and interest.
of Andhra Pradesh acquired the same under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act.
The Department approached the Income tax Appellate Tribunal with an appeal but in vain as the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner and companyfirmed his order.
2,43,934/ was payable as tax and initiated penalty proceedings.
Srinivasan.
The Govt.
Officer in charge Court of wards versus CWT 72 ITR 552 which was number accepted by the Department?
The I.T.O. initiated proceedings under Section 147 a of the Act for the year ending 31.3.65 in March 1973 and issued a numberice under Sec.
The Commissioner allowed the appeal and cancelled the order of assessment under S.147 a .
J. The appellant owned certain lands in Nacharam village near Hyderabad.
He sought the sanction of the Commissioner on the ground that the land acquired was number agricultural land as it had number been subjected to agricultural operation and the capital gains thereon were chargeable to income tax.
