- (1.) HEARD Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Counsel for the appel lant-department.
(2.) THE key question, upon which the fate of this appeal turns, is whether the reassessment made under Section 147 of the Income Taxact, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should be treated to be a "regular assessment" for the purpose of Section 273 of the Act. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of a Divi sion Bench of thiscourt in the case of C. I. T. Lucknowv. Smt. Jagjitkaur, (1980) 1261. T. R. 540. In that decision this Court considered the contents of Section 273 and the definition of'regular assessment" given in Section 2 (40) of the Act, and then held that the reassessment made under Section 147 would not be a "regular assessment" for the purpose of Section 273 of the Act. It was held by the Division Bench that there was nothing in the words or in the context of Section 273 of the Income Tax Act to remove that the words "regular assessment" as used therein, should be assigned a meaning different than the definition given in Section 2 (40) of the Act. For meeting the hurdle of the above decision, the learned Counsel for the department has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Govindan and Sons v. C. I. T. , (2001)247i. T. R. 192. In that decision the Supreme Court considered whether for the purpose of Section 139 (8) of the Act the as sessment under Section 147 should or should not be treated to be a "regular assessment".
(3.) RELYING upon the Explanation-2 to Section 139 (8) quoted below, the Su preme Court held that for the purposes of Section 139 (8) the assessment under Section 147 would be deemed to be a "regular assessment". The said explana tion is reproduced below for ready reference: "explanation-2.-Where in relation to an assessment year, an assess ment is made for the first time under Section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this sub section". Section 273 does not contain anything like the above explanation. As such, the decision of the Supreme Court does not in any manner alter the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jagjit Kaur (supra ). This appeal has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. .;