J.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Revenue for a direction to the Tribunal, Jaipur to state the case and refer to his Court for its decision the following question of law : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of S. 147 (b) of the IT Act, 1961 could not be invoked in this case -
(2.) THE relevant assessment year is 1974 -75. The assessee constructed a house at Chandigarh. The construction of that house was commenced in the year 1968 and it had continued upto the asst. yr. 1976 -77. The assessee showed investment in construction of that house upto the asst. year 1973 - 74, but not during the relevant asst. year 1974 -75. The ITO re -opened the original assessment made for this assessment year by issuing a notice under S. 147(a) r/w S. 148 of the Act. Re -assessment was made thereafter by making an addition of Rs. 3,14,907 during this assessment year. Similar action was taken by the ITO in respect of the subsequent year 1975 -76, for which an addition of Rs. 70,670 was made in the re -assessment order.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the ITO, the assessee appealed to the CIT (A). The appeal was allowed and the objection of the assessee was upheld cancelling the re -assessment order made by the ITO. Thereafter, the Tribunal has rejected the Revenue's appeal and also rejected the application made for a reference under S. 256(1) of the Act. Hence, this application by the Revenue. The only question for our decision is, whether the above -quoted question of law arises for decision out of the Tribunal's order. It is not disputed that the Revenue's case throughout was that the re -assessment could be made under cl. (a) of S. 147 r/w S. 148 of the Act. That contention was rejected and the above quoted question does not relate to cl. (a) of S. 147. Before the Tribunal, an alternative argument was advanced by the Revenue, for the first time, based on cl. (b) of S. 147 of the Act. The Tribunal pointed out that such a contention could not be permitted for the first time at that stage. However, even on merits, this contention was rejected by the Tribunal.;