9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heries and Poultry. The relevant assessment years are 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the corresponding accounting years ended on 31.03.1992 and 31.03.1993, respectively. For the assessment year 1992-93, assessment was completed on 02.11.1998 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act ("Act" in short) determining a total income of Rs.3,10,280/-. For the assessment year 1993-94, assessment was completed on 27.10.1998 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act determining a total income of Rs.4,74,970/-. Aggrieved by the assessment orders for both the years, the assessee filed appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The C.I.T.(A) partly allowed the appeals and granted relief in respect of the claim made by the assessee under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act by order dated 01.03.1999. By giving effect to the said Appellate Order, the assessments have been revised on 31.05.1999 allowing assessee's claim of deduction under Sections 80HH, 80HHA and 80-I of the Act. In the mean time, the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174 (SC), considered the scope of prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further appeals by the Revenue. Though the said C.I.T.(A)'s order is erroneous in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174, the same has not been set aside by the process known to law. The Tribunal considered this aspect and held in Paragraph 3 of its order, as follows:- "The original assessment in these cases was completed on 2.11.98 under sec.143(3) read with sec.147 of the I.T. Act. These were subjected to appeal. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the deduction claimed by the Assessee under sec.80HH and 80-I vide his order dated 01.03.1999. After passing the order by the CIT(Appeals), the assessment was reopened following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. & Others [1999] 237 ITR 174, vide Notice dated 11.10.1999. In our opinion, this is not correct. Even the bad order of the Appellate Authority has reached finality. The Assessing Officer cannot sit over judgment of the Appellate Order. The only option open to him is to prefer an appeal before the higher forum. The Assessing Officer, in this case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Supreme Court, that order cannot be read as automatically been corrected nor is the effect given to that order automatically undone. Its legal validity is not in any way affected by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even a wrong order has a finality and unless that finality is disturbed by a process known to law or by a process authorised by law, the rights of the assessee and the Revenue will continue to be governed by the order of the Tribunal. There is no justification for the action of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in interfering with the order of the Income-tax Officer giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in his order under section 154. The proposition that the order of the Income-tax Officer merely gives effect to the relief as directed by the Income-tax Tribunal cannot be doubted. But even then, what is important is that the source of that order is the order of the Tribunal which still remains final between the Revenue and the assessee. So far as the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is concerned, even there, by parity of reasoning, the only authority which will be entitled to interfere with the order of the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment" are more comprehensive than the words "the Income-tax Officer discovers that income, etc., have escaped assessment in any year", and, therefore, though there was a finding by the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer did not "discover" that there was escape of assessment, the Income-tax Officer under the amended section 34 can initiate proceedings in spite of that finding. We cannot accept this argument. It could not have been the intention of the legislature by amending the section to enable the Income-tax Officer to reopen final decisions made against the revenue in respect of questions that directly arose for decision in earlier proceedings. The Tribunal held in the earlier proceedings that the Income-tax Officer knew all the facts at the time he made the original assessment in regard to the income he later on sought to tax. The said finding necessarily implies that the Income-tax Officer had no reason to believe that because of the assessee's failure to disclose the facts income has escaped assessment. The earlier finding is comprehensive enough to negat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
