9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 8,502 in favour of the mother of the four partners. There were similar entries in the names of the wives of the four brothers. The total of the five amounts came to Rs. 42,117. The assessee's case was that capital was introduced by selling ornaments belonging to the five ladies. This explanation was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. It was held that the alleged sale proceeds represented concealed income of the firm. However, the Income tax Officer included in the assessment only one deposit, namely that of Rs. 8,502 recorded in the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi, mother of the partners. Interest credited in favour of the ladies was also added. The assessment order was challenged in appeal by the assessee. One of the grievances of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand order. The operative part of the remand order ran thus : " I have therefore no other alternative but to set aside the assessment on this ground and to direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after examining the ladies according to their wishes. " The remand order was passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 31 of the Act. In disposing of an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after making such further enquiry as the Income-tax Officer thinks fit or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may direct. The scope of such a remand order came up for consideration before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that in that case the remand order was expressly for checking the calculations. There is no such limitation in the present case. In the present case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment, and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after examining the ladies. The items in question were already on the record. For some reason, the first officer did not consider four items as income of the assessee-firm. The second officer took a different view of the matter. The second officer did not exceed the directions contained in the remand order. It cannot, therefore, be said that the second officer exceeded his jurisdiction in treating the four deposits as income of the assessee-firm. We answer the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
