V.DONGZATHANG, A.M. : March, 1987 - (1.) THESE appeals of the Revenue are directed against the orders of the CIT(A). Since common issues are involved, they are consolidated and heard together and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.
(2.) The assessees are non-resident shipping companies assessed by the ITO in the status of tramp-ships under S. 172(4) of the IT Act, 1961. In the original assessment, the ITO adopted the rate of exchange per U.S. dollar on the basis of the telegraphic transfer as certified by the local branch of the State Bank of India. Subsequently, the ITO received a circular from the Board which indicated a different rate of exchange. On the basis of this information, the ITO reopened the assessment of the assessees under S. 147(b) of the IT Act. Rejecting the explanation offered, the ITO completed the reassessment proceedings on the basis of the correct rate of exchange intimated by the CBDT, New Delhi. Aggrieved by the said reassessment, the assessees took up the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) contending that the ITO was not justified in reopening the assessment under S. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961. At the time of hearing before the learned CIT(A) the various grounds raised in the grounds of appeal as per the memo of appeal filed before him were not properly highlighted. The learned CIT(A) held the reopening to be invalid. According to him, an order under S. 172(4) does not fall under the category of cases which can be reopened under the provisions of S. 147 Sec. 147 applies only to those orders which are based upon the returns filed under S. 139 and not under any other section. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the provisions of S. 147 are not applicable and hence the reassessment proceedings become invalid. He, accordingly, set aside the reassessment proceedings and restored the original order under S. 172(4) of the IT Act. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) did not deal with other grounds raised before him. The Revenue is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us. In all the appeals, the following common grounds are raised : "1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the order under S. 144 r/w S. 147(b) and 172(4) passed by the ITO in this case for the asst. yr. 1978-79 is illegal. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that an order under S. 172(4) does not fall under the category of cases which can be reopened under the provisions of S. 147.
(3.) THE CIT(A) erred in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of S. 147 applied only to those orders which are passed upon the returns filed under S. 139 (and not under any other section).;