9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 263 and restoring the original assessment order. 2. Applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel to the order dated August 29, 1984. 3. Legality and validity of the order passed u/s 263 cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 4. Legality and validity of the Commissioner of Income-tax holding the earlier order as illegal and without jurisdiction. Summary: Issue 1: Justification of Tribunal in Setting Aside the Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 263 The Tribunal restored the original assessment order, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer had conducted a detailed inquiry and complied with the directions of the then Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Issue 2: Applicability of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel The Tribunal held that the principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable to the order dated August 29, 1984, and thus, it was not binding on the Commissioner of Income-tax who subsequently passed the order u/s 263. The Tribunal maintained that the assessment could be revised by the successor Commissioner of Income-tax. Issue 3: Legality and Validity of the Order Passed u/s 263 The Tribunal considered the detailed explanations and supporting evidence provided by the assessee regarding the assets seized during the search. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax did not adequately demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was valid and legal. Issue 4: Legality and Validity of the Commissioner of Income-tax Holding the Earlier Order as Illegal and Without Jurisdiction The Tribunal found that the detailed inquiries and verifications made by the Assessing Officer were sufficient and that the successor Commissioner of Income-tax's criticism of the assessment was unjustified. The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed following proper inquiry and verification, thus it was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering the question referred at the instance of the Revenue in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the questions referred at the instance of the assessee were not answered. The reference application was disposed of accordingly.
|
