TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax(Appeals)-XII at Chennai, dated 21-10-2011 and arises out of the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. It is the case of the assessee that the lower authorities have enhanced the assessment while giving effect to the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, when the Tribunal neither directed to enhance the assessment nor altered the income determined by the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals). The detailed grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are extracted below:- 1. The order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) confirming the order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 254 is illegal, arbitrary, against the weight of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 8. The lower authorities ought to have seen that the assessing officer has only estimated the profit on the total contract receipts originally at 8% and subsequently at 20% and has not split up the contract receipts between land and building at any point of time of assessment. 9. The appellant submits that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) only split up the receipts between land and building and made the partners of the appellant to agree for the determination of the total income at ₹ 16,12,679/- which the partners have accepted without going into the details of the computation as they were all ignorant of the provisions of the Act and had no other alternative except to the computation made by the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per. For the impugned assessment year 2001-02, the original assessment was completed by estimating the income at 8% of the total contract receipts of ₹ 94,57,500/-. The assessment was reopened subsequently under section 147 on the ground that the common area of the construction was not taken into consideration. The reassessment was completed on 27-12-2006 determining the total income at ₹ 28,11,700/-. The above income was determined by the Assessing Officer by adopting a profit rate of 20% of the gross profit. The reopened assessment was taken in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) modified the total income in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 16,12,679/-. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) giving deduction of ₹ 20 lakhs towards purchase of land stood vindicated. 5. The Assessing Officer thereafter proceeded to work out the income of the assessee again and ultimately determined the taxable income at ₹ 32,69,228/-. When this assessment order passed under section 143(3), read with section 254, was taken before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), he found that the assessing authority is justified in estimating the profit at 12%, which is also the rate adopted by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) earlier. He accordingly upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is against the above that the assessee has come in appeal before us. 7. In short, in the orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould have stopped there. But he went further and reworked the profit and ultimately determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 32,69,228/-. This is against law. In an assessment completed under section 143(3), read with section 254, the Assessing Officer should confine himself to the directions issued by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. He does not have jurisdiction to go beyond the direction given by the Tribunal. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has gone beyond the jurisdiction granted by the Tribunal. He has erred in law in re-determining the income of the assessee even after giving a finding that the claim made by the assessee for deduction of ₹ 20 lakhs was justified. 9. Therefore, we find that the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
