1999 (11) TMI 6 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) quashing the reframed assessments.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to the cancelled orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Impact of previous court orders on the assessment orders.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to four applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the same assessee. Two applications are for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, while the other two are for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The main issue revolves around the correctness of upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order quashing the reassessment under sections 143(3) and 263 of the Income-tax Act.

2. In the first set of applications, the Commissioner set aside the assessment orders due to uninvestigated deposits, leading to fresh assessments by the Assessing Officer under section 263. However, the Commissioner's order under section 263 was later cancelled by the Tribunal, rendering the reassessment orders invalid. The Tribunal justified its decision based on the non-existence of the Commissioner's order under section 263 at the time of its ruling, making the reassessment orders null and void.

3. The second set of applications involved similar circumstances where the Commissioner's order under section 263 was cancelled by the Tribunal, leading to the cancellation of reassessment orders. The Commissioner appealed these decisions, but the Tribunal upheld its earlier rulings. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's decisions were lawful as they were based on the circumstances prevailing at the time, where the Commissioner's order under section 263 had been revoked.

4. The Commissioner argued for a reference to the High Court based on previous court orders, but the Court maintained that the current applications were limited to the question of upholding the Commissioner's order quashing the reassessments. The Court concluded that since the basis of jurisdiction for reassessment had been eliminated by the Tribunal's cancellation of the Commissioner's order under section 263, the reassessment orders could not stand. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, and the Commissioner was advised to seek alternative remedies if necessary.

In summary, the judgment addresses the validity of reassessment orders in light of cancelled orders under section 263, emphasizing the impact of the Tribunal's decisions on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner.