TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 3), under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act" ), in relation to the assessment year 1986-87, the petitioner filed the return and declared a total income of Rs. 17,810 and a net agricultural income of Rs. 50,000. Respondent No. 3 did not accept the return and by an order dated July 17, 1991, passed under section 143(3) of the Act, he made the assessment at an income of Rs. 20,21,850. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short, "the CIT (Appeals)"), on October 29, 1991, with a direction that a fresh assessment be made after giving an opportunity to him to adduce evidence in support of his claim. In compliance with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), respondent No. 3 issued notices to the petitioner under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act and by an order dated March 30, 1994, he assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 12,59,980. The appeal filed against that order was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the appellate order and, therefore, he challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative says that the complete record is not with him, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to record a finding on the claim made by the assessee. In case no reasons are found recorded, appropriate order is to be passed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. L. Subhayya v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 711 ; the Patna High Court in the case of Narang Brothers v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 409 and the Bombay High Court in the case of Nargis M. Baldiwala v. M. N. Sawant, Second ITO [1990] 185 ITR 143 and the proceedings are to be quashed." The Tribunal then proceeded to examine the other grounds and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. In terms of the direction given by the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was required to decide whether or not the competent authority had recorded reasons before issuing notice under section 148(2) of the Act, but instead of doing that, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide his order dated March 27, 1998, set aside the assessment as a whole and remitted the case to respondent No. 3 to complete the assessment as per law keepin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act before the joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhatinda Range, Bhatinda (respondent No. 2), with the prayer that respondent No. 3 may be directed to drop the proceedings because reasons allegedly recorded by the then Assessing Officer were not available in the file. That application was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order annexure P-10 with the following observations : "I have gone through the petition of the assessee under section 144A dated January 24, 2000, and I have also gone through the report of the Assessing Officer, Ward-2, Bhatinda, on the application under section 144A filed by Shri Baldev Singh Giani, H. No. 2642, Court Road, Bhatinda. As per the report of Shri R. S. Jain, the then Assessing Officer, Ward-2, Bhatinda, who had recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessments in this case for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1987-88, has stated that he recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessments in the above case and notices under section 148 of the Act were issued on March 8, 1989, for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 after earmarking respective concealment in this case. However, in the assessment year 1986-87, reasons recorded are not avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Raja D. V. Seetharamayya Bahadur v. Sixth WTO [1995] 213 ITR 502. He then argued that section 148(2) is mandatory in nature and failure of the Assessing Officer to record reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner should be treated as sufficient to vitiate the order annexure P-10 passed by respondent No. 2 and the refusal of respondent No. 3 to drop the proceedings of reassessment should be declared illegal. Shri R. P. Sawhney, senior counsel for the Revenue, strongly relied on the letter of Shri R. S. Jain and argued that the assertion made by him can be relied upon for showing that reassessment proceedings were initiated after complying with section 148(2) of the Act. Shri Sawhney submitted that recording of reasons by Shri Jain for issuing notice in relation to the assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89 makes his version about recording of similar reasons in relation to the assessment year 1986-87 highly credible and respondent No. 2 has rightly directed respondent No. 3 to proceed under section 148 of the Act. Learned counsel then argued that the Tribunal should not have entertained the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner about the violation of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the question as to the extent of the land owned by the assessee at No. 64, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Madras-4, exclude therefrom the extent of the lands that had been settled by deeds dated March 25, 1970, on his daughters and include in the total net wealth of the assessee, the remaining portion of the land only.' There is no direction in any other appellate order in relation to the property in the city of Madras. The appellate order in relation to the years 1970-71 to 1972-73 directs assessment to be 'redone'. The appellate order for 1974-75 and 1975-76 follows this order. The appellate order for 1973-74, however, directs the officer to make 'a fresh assessment' in the manner stated in the said order. The question requiring consideration of this court is whether these directions empower the Assessing Officer to reopen the entire assessment and even revalue properties not ordered to be revalued by the appellate authority. Considering the finality attached to an assessment order and the Assessing Officer having become functus officio; in relation thereto, this court is of the view that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer has to be found in the remand order itself and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
