- (1.) 1. Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 9.11.1993 in ITA No.257/Chandigarh/89, in respect of assessment year 1980-81:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the ratio of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt.Amala Das v. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 216 did not apply to the facts of the present case and in holding that the proceedings under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had validly been initiated by the Assessing Officer? 2. There being no existing proceedings under the Income Tax Act against the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 at the relevant time, whether the Tribunal was right in law in not having held that the commission issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131(1)(d) was not valid?"
(2.) Original assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 was ITR No.58 of 1994 2 completed by the Assessing Officer on 10.3.1983. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer made a reference under section 131(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') to the Valuation Officer and finding that there was difference in the valuation reported, proceedings for reassessment were initiated. The assessee challenged the same before the appellate authority but failed. Further appeal before the Tribunal also met the same fate.
(3.) The Tribunal, inter-alia, relied upon judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Sakarlal Balabhai v. ITO (1975) 100 ITR 97 to hold that the report of the valuation Officer constituted information under section 147 (b) on the basis of which the Assessing Officer could have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Judgment of this Court in Smt.Amala Das's case (supra) was distinguished.;