TMI Blog1975 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with reference to the return of income filed on 7th July, 1966. To the net profit of Rs. 96,937 as per the Profit Loss Account, he disallowed Rs. 18,080 comprising Rs. 10,000 out of commission and Rs. 8,080 out of interest. The assessment was challenged before the AAC and in addition to the grounds of appeal originally taken in the memo, two additional grounds as reproduced below had been taken before him by the assessee:- (1) "For that the entire proceedings and resultant order u/s. 143(3) is bad in law and void inasmuch as the revised return filed was not considered and disposed of by the learned ITO" (2) "For that the determination of total income at Rs. 1,15,017 is wrong, incorrect, arbitrary and capricious." After hearing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the assessment year 1966-67 having expired after 31st March, 1971, the AAC travelled beyond his jurisdiction in setting aside the relevant assessment. In support, he refers to us the provisions of s. 246, 248, and 251. In this context the learned counsel contends that the AAC went beyond the scope of s. 246 because the appeal preferred before him was against the assessment order passed with reference to the original return and, therefore, his (A.A.C.) order should have been confined to the appeal itself relating to the assessment with reference to the original return. In the circumstances, the AAC was, it is submitted, not legally correct to refer to the revised return filed on 7th July, 1970 on which no further assessment could be ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Coal Syndicate(2) was fully justified in his decision setting aside the assessment and in his directions to the Income Tax Officer to re-do the same in accordance with law on the basis of the revised return. The Departmental Representative strongly relies upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Santa Baba Mohan Singh vs. CIT, U.P.(3) 5. After giving due consideration to the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the AAC committed a mistake by setting aside the assessment with a direction to the Income Tax Officer to re-do the same fresh in accordance with law by issuing notices u/s. 142 (1) and s. 142 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the time limit for completion of the relevant assessment with reference to the revised return filed on 7th July, 1970 expired in view of the provisions of s. 153 (1) (c) of the Act. Therefore, the question arises whether the assessment raised on the basis of the original return of income was legal and if not so, whether the AAC by his order could extend the period of limitation in supersession of the provisions of s. 153(1)(c), of the Act. In our view impugned assessment order was not legal and secondly, that being so and when the time limit for completion of the relevant assessment had already expired, the AAC was not justified in his direction by setting aside the said assessment order. In regard to second proposition of ours, we refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
