TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263 of the Act to annul the entire assessment and required passing of fresh assessment order. However, when the Commissioner, as in the present case, requires the Assessing Officer to carry out inquiries with respect to specified issues, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order must be confined to such issues, failing which we would be giving the power to the Assessing Officer to make reassessment. Gujarat High Court in similar background in the case of CIT Vs. D.N. Dosani [2005 (10) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] decided in the fresh assessment orders passed in pursuance of the consolidated order under section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was entitled to consider only those two items which had been considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reated as revenue receipt by the Assessing Officer? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in not adjudicating on the merits of the case of subscription fee treated as revenue receipt by the Assessing Officer and duly confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? 3. The chronology of the events needs to be recorded at the outset. (a). For the assessment year 2006-07, the respondent assessee had filed return of income claiming loss of ₹ 2.71 crore (rounded off). The Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 29.12.2018 assessing total income / loss as NIL. In such order, the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(b) is therefore leviable and the Assessing Officer should have initiated the same. Also, total income was assessed at Rs. Nil against loss of ₹ 2,71,93,000/- claimed by the assessee, and as discussed above, the income was simply determined at Nil without bringing any facts on record and without making any outdoor enquiries in the absence of compliance from the assessee. This cannot be said to be a best judgment assessment. 6. Even on the disallowances of expenses, no penalty u/S. 271(1)(c) has been initiated as required by Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). No penalty u/S. 271(1)(c) was initiated for non compliance of the notice. 7. In view of the foregoing, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 29.12.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of entrance fees, he held in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition holding that the receipt was capital in nature. Though, this question did not arise out of the original order of assessment in relation to the assessee's appeal, against such order also, the Commissioner commented that the receipt should be treated as capital. This common order of the Commissioner gave rise to two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the said judgment dated 22.7.2015 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 4. The questions suggested by the Revenue arise out of these proceedings. With respect to the first question, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's revisional order required the Assessing Officer to examine certain aspects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed as under:- 12. The scheme of the Act has provided different powers to different authorities and these are required to be exercised after satisfying the pre-requisite conditions and jurisdictional facts. The assessing officer can disturb / re-open a finalized assessment by invoking his powers either under Section 154 or under Section 147 of the Act, provided he can show that the necessary requirements are fulfilled. If, what the Revenue contends today is accepted, these and other such provisions which empower different authorities to exercise jurisdiction at different point of time in distinct settings would be rendered otiose and that can never be the legislative intent. It is almost akin to providing separate keys for separa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
