JUDGMENT
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 in the assessee’s case especially since he has rightly invoked the provisions of section 147(b)since the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and since the assessee himself had consented to treat the return filed on 3-6-1982 as the return filed in response to notice under section 148 ?”
2. The assessment year involved is 1982-83.
2. The assessment year involved is 1982-83.
3. Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue fairly submits that the issues raised in the question is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC). Following the said decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
3. Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue fairly submits that the issues raised in the question is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC). Following the said decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.