TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nched by the Government, was not erroneous so as to enable the Commissioner to assume jurisdiction under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner did not follow the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order and so his order is not valid ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the impugned order of the Commissioner is based upon mere surmises and conjectures and is, therefore, not valid? 4. Whether, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rambha Devi v. ITO [IT Nos. 1713 to 1715 of 1974-75], the Tribunal has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely assessed on a total income of Rs, 5,100 as envisaged in the scheme. When the fact of assessment of the assessee came to the notice of the Commissioner, he cancelled the order of assessment and directed the ITO concerned to make a fresh assessment after complying with the provisions of section 143(1) after making proper enquiry/verification. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner cancelling the assessment in terms of section 263(1) of the Act, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The latter set aside the order of the Commissioner holding that the assessments have been made after proper verification and, therefore, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction, to cancel the assessment order passed by the ITO as it was neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the income of the husband from being assessed at a higher rate. The principles of natural justice had not been contravened in any manner. 7. In regard to the third question, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the order of the Commissioner was based on surmises and conjectures. No enquiry had been held and, therefore, no concluded finding could be arrived at by the Commissioner and, therefore, there was no question of surmises and conjectures. 8. In regard to the fourth question, in our view, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rambha Devi ( supra) was not correct. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the Commissioner could not set aside the assessment in pursuance of the scheme. 9. In respect of the las ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
