- (1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7474 and 7488 of 1990 as both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner involve identical facts and questions. However, facts are being extracted from CWP No.7474 of 1990, as narrated in the petition.
(2.) The petitioner was a doctor practicing at Jalandhar. He filed his return for the assessment year 1984-85 alongwith balance sheet and profit and loss account. He had later filed a revised computation chart showing investment allowance claim of Rs.23,111/-. Assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") on 25.7.1986, Annexure P.2. Similar investment allowance claim was made by the petitioner for the earlier assessment year i.e. 1983-84 on the same terms as in the assessment year 1985-86. This claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer. On appeal by the petitioner in the assessment year 1983-84, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the petitioner for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was reversed and investment allowance was disallowed, vide order dated 28.1.1988, Annexure P-5. On September 26, 1986, a raid was conducted at the house and hospital of the petitioner for investigating the alleged concealment of income. According to the petitioner, this raid was conducted with malafide intention at the instance of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the said respondent got started scrutiny proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87 against the petitioner. Vide order dated March 17, 1989, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax assessed the return of the petitioner for the assessment year 1986-87 after clubbing the income of the petitioner with that of Bawa Nursing Home, the lessee firm. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 28.2.1990. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 15.11.1988, Annexure P.3 for re-opening the assessment already done in the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 1984-85. Similar notices had been issued in respect of assessment years 1980-81 to 1985-86.
(3.) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed the facts at the time of original assessment relating to claim of investment allowance and on that basis, assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 25.7.1986. It was submitted that in such a situation, the case relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 could be re-opened under Section 147 of the Act within four years as laid down under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Apex Court in CIT v. Corporation Bank Limited etc.,2002 174 CTR 577, CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited, 2010 320 ITR 561, CIT v. Thanthi Trust, 1996 217 ITR 198 and Calcutta Discount Company Limited v. ITO, 1961 41 ITR 191. On merits, learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in CIT v. Dr. S.K.Ohri, 2009 310 ITR 209 to submit that the investment allowance was admissible to the petitioner.;