Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (4) TMI 1459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) not adjudicating the issue of jurisdiction i.e. reassessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. For this, the assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 2. For that the ld. CIT(A.) erred in confirming the action under section. 147 initiated in the case of the assessee which were unlawful and not in accordance with law. 3. For that the ld. CIT(A.) erred in confirming the action under section when no reasons were recorded in the case of the assessee and the copy of the reasons recorded or detailed notings in the notes attached to the assessment order in the case of G.S. Sureka for the assessment year 1989-90 were not communicated to the assessee. The recording of the reasons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... completed the reassessment consequent to the direction of ITAT. Reopening of assessment under section. 147 is not a subject matter in this assessment order passed on 31.3.2005. This order is only reassessment and not order passed consequent to reopening under section. 147. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are not relevant for the reassessment order which is a subject matter of this appeal. Grounds of appeal are not maintainable . The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that this being a legal issue can be raised at any time and CIT(A) should have adjudicated the same. Hence, he requested the Bench to adjudicate this issue now. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(D.R.) stated that reopening was not the subject matter befor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... round of appeal passed on remand. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P. V. Doshi Vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Guj.), which is directly on the issue that assessee can dispute the validity of reassessment proceedings even in the second round of appeal. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P. V. Doshi (supra) held as under: Therefore, if this settled position was borne in mind, the Tribunal's view was clearly erroneous that the matter became final when the Tribunal passed the earlier remand order so that this point of jurisdiction got finally settled, which could not be agitated unless the assessee had come in the reference to this court at that stage. The Tribunal's vie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not disputed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not touch on this point in his common order dated August 17, 1972, and decided the appeals on merits in favour of the assessee. As such, it would be deemed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner decided the point of jurisdiction against the assessee. Admittedly, the said point of jurisdiction was duly raised before the learned Tribunal by learned counsel for the assessee before the close of his arguments. Even an application was moved by him at that time. Rule 27, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, provides that the respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. Thus, the assessee was entitl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the Department. It is well-settled law that the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction is decided first. Only after its decision holding that the court or the Tribunal has jurisdiction, other questions relating to the merits of the case arise for decision, otherwise not. The Tribunal has power to take additional evidence. After taking the evidence which is considered necessary, the said point regarding lack of jurisdiction can well be decided by the Tribunal. As such, it is neither necessary nor expedient for this court to decide the remaining questions. The case deserves to be sent back to the learned Tribunal for first deciding the said point regarding the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates