TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The only issue arises for consideration is regarding reopening of the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year merely for adopting another method for valuation of shares. 3. Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the direction of this Tribunal and CWT (Appeals), the shares were valued on yield basis adopting the value of per share at Rs. 230. However, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and repeated the very same addition made in the order of assessment on the ground that a Reference Application was filed in R.A. No. 117/Mds./93 before this Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, once the CWT (Appeals) and this Tribunal passed an order directing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of valuing the shares. As on 7-8-1991, even though an appeal filed by the Revenue was pending against the order of the CWT (Appeals) before this Tribunal, the decision of the CWT (Appeals) with effect to value the shares on yield basis was in existence. Once the CWT (Appeals) passed the order on the appeal filed by the assessee, the order of the Assessing Officer merges with the order of CWT (Appeals). Therefore, if at all any rectification has to be made, it has to be done only by CWT (Appeals) and not by Assessing Officer. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer himself filed an appeal before this Tribunal against the order of CWT (Appeals). Therefore, the Assessing Officer has to wait for the decision of this Tribunal before issuing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the CWT (Appeals) on 30-9-1991. Therefore, it may be a good reason for the Assessing Officer to move the High Court for setting aside the order of this Tribunal and the order of the CWT (Appeals) or the Assessing Officer might have moved t his Tribunal under section 254(2) to rectify the order dated 30-9-1991 on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court. So long as the order of this Tribunal and the order of CWT (Appeals) remain undisturbed in our opinion, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the issue which was concluded by an order of CWT (Appeals) and this Tribunal. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has a very good reason for filing a Reference Application before the Hon'ble High Court or filing a rectification petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 342 at pages 344 and 355 held as follows:- "When the Income-tax Officer gave effect to the direction of the Tribunal by making the computation by order dated December 7, 1977, undoubtedly he had correctly interpreted the order that, according to the Tribunal, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 80J. The attempt on the part of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner now to take away the relief under section 80J virtually has the effect of amending the order of the Tribunal by reversing the view which is taken by the Tribunal, viz., the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80J of the Act. It was vehemently argued before us that section 80J(1A) of the Act has now been held to be valid by the Supreme Court. While th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
