2015 (6) TMI 1261 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of taxable income - Tribunal reduced the assessed income deleted majority of the additions by placing reliance on the additional material filed - Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals before the High Court in Ku. Pa. Krishnan 2012 (8) TMI 130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT who inturn found that the Tribunal ought not have gone into the additional evidence rather should have remitted the matter back to the file of the AO - HELD THAT - In view of the judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remitting back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer it is a bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to consider all the additional evidence filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. Unfortunately inspite of direction of the High Court the Assessing Officer has not referred any of the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the impugned assessment order. As rightly submitted by assessee and the Ld. Sr. Special Public Prosecutor for the Department AO has not considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore there is a clear violation of the direction issued by the High Court. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the High Court directed the AO to consider the additional evidence the Assessing Officer has no other option except to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee and discuss the same in the assessment order by making a reference in respect of each and every additional evidence filed by the assessee and thereafter the Assessing Officer has to pass a speaking order. Since the direction of the High Court was not complied with and the Assessing Officer failed to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by AO as directed by the High Court. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of additional evidence by Assessing Officer post direction from High Court.
2. Compliance with High Court's directive to Assessing Officer.
3. Seized jewelry from the premises of the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to an order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.03.2013 concerning the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 up to 17.07.1996. The Tribunal had previously determined the taxable income at a lesser amount than assessed by the Assessing Officer. Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals before the High Court, which directed the Assessing Officer to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee and pass a fresh order. However, the Assessing Officer failed to consider the additional evidence, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not refer to any of the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the impugned assessment order, despite the High Court's clear directive. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer must consider all additional evidence and pass a speaking order in compliance with the High Court's directions. As the Assessing Officer failed to adhere to the High Court's directive, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and a fresh assessment order within six months.

3. The assessee's counsel raised concerns regarding seized jewelry, stating that despite the search in 1996, the Department had not completed proceedings and was unwilling to return the seized items. The counsel requested a direction for the return of the jewelry. However, the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the Assessing Officer's failure to consider additional evidence, leading to the remittance of the matter for a fresh assessment in accordance with the High Court's directive.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's obligation to reconsider the issue, consider all additional evidence, and pass a fresh assessment order within six months as directed by the High Court.