TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated September 13, 1982, and September 14, 1982, proposing to determine the market value of the assets mentioned therein during the assessment period from March 31, 1970, to March 31, 1982. These notices are under challenge in Writ Petitions Nos. 8440 to 8442 of 1982. It appears that in a similar factual situation assessment orders were passed for the years 1970-71 to 1976-77, and the petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 4159 to 4165 of 1982 seeks to challenge the legal validity of those assessment orders. It is no longer in dispute that the petitioners are liable to pay wealth-tax on the property owned by them to be calculated in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioners own agricultural lands at Ramavaram village and Katravalapalli village in Andhra Pradesh and various house sites and buildings in the city of Madras. All these properties were valued by the Wealth-tax Officer at the time of original assessment and tax imposed. The petitioners preferred appeals against those assessments which were allowed and the matter remanded. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals )-III, Madras, dated March 31, 1993, referable to Writ Petitions Nos. 8440-8442 of 1982 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing directions : " In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had set aside the assessments for the year 1970-71 and onwards for being redone after referring the question of valuation to the Valuation Officer, I would set aside the assessments with directions to the Wealth-tax Officer to pass a speaking order with reasons for any variations that he thinks are called for. In particular, he should comply with the statutory provisions so far as reference to the valuation cell are concerned. " It has already been noticed that appeals filed against the assessments relating to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 are pending hence assessments for these years must be deemed to be final, subject to the appeals. It is common ground that similar orders were passed in matters covered in Writ Petitions Nos. 4159 to 4165 of 1982. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions by the appellate authorities the Assessing Officer referred to the Valuation Officer the valuation of not only the agricultural property in Andhra Pradesh but also of the property in the city of Madras and consequent upon the said reference the Valuation Officer had issued notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be entitled to reopen the matter and make fresh computations again and again. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer had assessed wealth-tax on the petitioners-assessees for the years 1970-71 to 1977-78 and appeals filed against the orders of 1976-77 and 1977-78 have not been decided so far and could not be reopened by the Assessing Officer. In spite of it, notices issued by the Valuation Officer cover those periods and thereby disturb the finality attached to the assessment orders. The notices in so far as they relate to those two years, i.e., 1976-77 and 1977-78, must be held to be illegal since the original assessments have not been set aside in appeal. The Assessing Officer could not have made a reference under section 16A of the Act. As regards the period from 1970-71 to 1975-76 which are covered by the appellate orders noticed earlier, the direction of the appellate authority was to get the agricultural properties valued under section 16A and nothing more. As regards the house property in the city of Madras, there was no direction to get them revalued under section 16A of the Act. The appellate orders for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had only directed the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ific direction to reconsider that part only, the Income-tax Officer would not be entitled to reopen the entire assessment. According to the court, the appellate order should have been read as a whole and in proper context and if it was so read, the fresh assessment could not be made. Their Lordships also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in J. K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 47 ITR 906 and distinguished the same by holding that in the said case the appellate authority had set aside the whole assessment and for that reason the Income-tax Officer had a free hand in the matter. This case, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after remand would depend upon the terms of the remand order and he would not be entitled to go beyond the same. The same view has been followed in Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 872 (Cal), wherein it was clearly stated that "Where the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is specific it is not open to the Income-tax Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry beyond the said directions and to proceed to make a fresh assessment without any reference to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Seth Manicklal Fomra [1975] 99 ITR 470 (Mad) has to be read as a whole and in the context of the question involved for consideration of the court. It is well-known that a decision takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and for that reason it is not permissible to pick up a sentence from the judgment to give it a new shape or colour. It was a case where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had, while setting aside the assessment, directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, made the fresh assessment exercising his original jurisdiction and included income of the assessee from sources not considered in the original assessment. This judgment is, therefore, not an authority for the proposition that the Income-tax Officer could go beyond the appellate order. The Allahabad High Court in Cawnpore Chemicals Works P. Ltd. (No.1) v. CIT [1992] 197 ITR 296 has considered this aspect of the matter and brought out the said distinction. Even this court has in CIT v. S. K. Ulagammal Achi [1987] 166 ITR 210 explained this case by observing that "the decision cited by learned counsel is also not an author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellate authority. He has thus reopened even the matter in relation to the years where the assessment orders had not been challenged in appeal and had become final. There is, therefore, a patent illegality in the impugned notices as also the assessment orders justifying issuance of a writ of certiorari in the matter. Learned standing counsel for the Department, however, raised a technical objection that the notices which are the subject-matter of Writ Petitions Nos. 8440 to 8442 of 1982 relate to the years 1970-71 to 1982-83 and since each assessment year is considered as a separate unit by itself a separate writ petition for each year should have been filed. The objection is highly technical in nature and ignores the fact that the Department itself had issued one notice in relation to one property for all these years. The objection does not deserve to be taken any serious note of and is consequently rejected. Learned standing counsel also submitted that in case the notices as such are quashed, the proceedings in relation to the assessment years where the assessment has not been completed will also be affected creating complication in the matter. As regards the years w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
