TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inasmuch as the draft order was not referred to the IAC in accordance with section 144B and, therefore, on that ground, the CIT was justified in revising the order ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT, merely on the ground that there was a case for enquiry and that, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the order of the CIT directing the ITO to proceed in the matter afresh ?" For the assessment year 1973-74 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as the draft order was not referred to the IAC in accordance with section 144B and, therefore, on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, the Commissioner set aside the assessment orders passed by the ITO and directed the ITO to make fresh assessments according to law, after giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the order of the Commissioner revising the order of the ITO on account of failure to comply with the provisions of s. 144B of the Act was not bad in law. As regards the assessment year 1972-73, the Tribunal held that from the order of the Commissioner, it was clear that the matter had been left open. The Tribunal observed as follows: " All that we can say is that a case for enquiry was there and sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see contended that s. 52 of the Act had no application. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597. But the question as to whether the provisions of s. 52 of the Act are or are not attracted in the instant case, does not arise at this stage. The Commissioner has merely directed the ITO to consider the question of applicability of s. 52 of the Act in view of the material on record. The Tribunal has held that as the ITO had not stated that he had looked into that aspect of the matter, there was nothing wrong in the order of the Commissioner directing the ITO to look into the matter afresh. We see no cogent reason for holding that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
