TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ’ble High Court, then in the absence of any fresh direction or any change in the scope of the remand proceedings by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the AO was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings in the third round despite the fact that the proceedings in the second round have already attained finality. We further note that the second round came to an end on 18/9/2002 when the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and the revenue has not pointed out this development of the second round of litigation arising in pursuance to the giving effect order passed by the AO dated 25/3/1997 to the Hon’ble High Court at the time of hearing of the appeal of the revenue which was disposed of vide order dated 11/5/2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Officer has erred in concluding, the Wealth 'Fax Officer, ward 11(1), Bangalore is empowered to pass the present order dated 28th December 2006 giving effect to the direction of the Hon'blc High Court of Karnataka - and enhance the market value of 2 lakhs adopted for 28 acres of open land in Bangalore Palace Compound in the order dated 25.3.1997 to ₹ 5,33,91,238/- and the same is not barred by limitation. (b) The various other reasons given by Appellate Officer to dismiss the ground No. 3 are bad in law. (c) Hence the order dated 28.12.2006 be cancelled and order dated 25.3.1997 as modified by order of CWT(A) -II dated 24.9.98 in WTA 263/c-vi/CIT (A) -11/97- 98 be declared as the correct order for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier years by appellate officer in an appeal u/s 23. 7. The grounds of Appeal filed before C.W.T.(A) be read as part and parcel hereof. 8. The appellant may be permitted to raise additional grounds and produce evidence in support of the grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. We first take up the legal issue raised by the assessee in ground Nos.2 and 3 regarding validity of the order passed by the AO dated 28/12/2006 giving effect to the directions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 4. We have heard learned AR of the assessee as well as the learned Departmental Representative and considered the relevant material on record. Brief facts emerging from the record which are relevant to decide this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the CWT(A) in appeal before the Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 18/9/2002 dismissed the appeal of the department. The order passed by the AO in pursuance to the order of the CWT(A) dated 30/12/1994 was carried upto this Tribunal and thereafter no further appeal. However, after the order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the earlier round of litigation, the AO has again passed the impugned order dated 28/12/2006. Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has forcefully contended that the subsequent order dated 28/12/2006 passed by the AO is without jurisdiction when the AO has already passed order dated 25/3/1997 in pursuance to the order of the CWT(A) dated 30/12/1994 which was not disturbed either by this Tribunal or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal before this Tribunal but could not succeed as the Tribunal, vide order dated 18/9/2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the department. Therefore, the second round of litigation came to an end when the appeal of the revenue was dismissed by this Tribunal on 18/9/2002. The matter did not end there, as subsequently, Hon ble High Court disposed of the appeal of the revenue against the order of this Tribunal in the first round vide order dated 11/7/2005 in para.4 as under: 4. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal has only remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the decisions rendered by the Tribunal. In our opinion, no question of law would arise out of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is comprehensive and reasoned one. We, therefore, find no reason for interference with the order vide which he has directed the AO to go through the entire matter afresh in its proper perspective and to reassess the matter in -accordance with law taking into account the decisions of the Tribunal referred in the order. Thus it is clear that the Tribunal has not issued any fresh directions in the order dated 19/4/2000 which was challenged by the revenue before the Hon ble High Court. Therefore, when the Hon ble High Court has not disturbed this order of the Tribunal, then, the third order which is the impugned order passed by the AO because of the reason that the Hon ble High Court has disposed of the appeal of the revenue subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
