9. We have beard Sri M V Sheshachala, learned standing counsel for the revenue-appellants and Sri A Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent
10. Appearing for the appellant-revenue, Sri Seshachala, learned standing counsel for the revenue, submits that the tribunal has committed an error in interfering with the matter and setting aside a well considered order passed by the assessing authority and affirmed by the first appellate authority. Learned counsel would submit that reopening was well within the scope ofSection 147 of the Act; that the declaration filed by the assessee definitely can constitute information within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and in support of this submission, reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haiyana High Court in the case of SAT NARAIM vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ((2009) 183 TAXMANN 40].
11. While the question as to whether a declaration filed by the assessee under the voluntary disclosure scheme can constitute information for the purpose of reopening underSection 147 may be a debatable point and either way may be the position, it is not open for this court to consider the matter now, as thetribunal has recorded a finding that there was no application of mind on the part of the assessing authority for reopening, particularly, if on perusing the actual reasoning as recorded in the proposition for reopening, which we have already extracted above, we are in full agreement with this view that theassessing authority cannot act on the dictates of the commissioner, who had directed him to reopen the concluded assessment for the year 1991-92, that, in our view also, does not constitute an information within the scope ofSection 147 of the Act.
12. Apart from this, Sri Shankor, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee also points out that the sanction – itself was defective, for the reason that the sanction was from the commissioner of income tax, whereas the authorized authority for sanction was only the joint commissioner, particularly, as the commissioner will have to act as the appellate authority against the orders passed by theassessing authority.
13. This submission is only reiterating the circumstance that the reopening was bad in law and therefore we cannot accept this submission made on behalf of the appellant-revenue.
14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, answering the first substantial question of law in the negative against the appellant-revenue and leaving open the other two questions, as they become virtually academic and accordingly they are not answered.
