2010 (4) TMI 698 - AT - Income Tax

Revision of an order which was set aside - Held that - The Assessing Officer has passed a revised assessment order even after knowing that the revision order passed by the CIT has been set aside by the Tribunal. The action of the Assessing Officer could be treated as assault on the rule of law. His action amounts to contempt of court as well. The Revenue could have preferred to file an appeal before the Jurisdictional High Court against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the revision order passed by the CIT. - The CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the revision assessment. The appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Regarding the contentions of the assessee pertaining to the consequences that may arise in future those arguments and contentions are premature. We are not to entertain anticipatory bail petitions. Therefore, we find the appeal filed by the assessee is non-est. The said appeal is also liable to dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Cross-appeals by assessee and Revenue against CIT(A) orders for the assessment year 2002-03 under Income-tax Act 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2002-03 under the Income-tax Act 1961. The original assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest by the CIT, leading to a direction for a fresh assessment to determine the arms length price in international transactions. However, the ITAT, Bangalore Bench 'B' held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial, thereby setting aside the CIT's revision order under section 263. Despite this, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass a revised assessment order based on the quashed revision order, which the CIT(A) found to be without jurisdiction. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the revised assessment and should have referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee raised concerns about future consequences if the high court reversed the Tribunal's order.

The ITAT heard both sides and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the revision assessment, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT also deemed the assessee's appeal premature regarding future consequences. Critically, the ITAT expressed astonishment at the Assessing Officer's actions in passing a revised assessment despite the quashed revision order, labeling it an assault on the rule of law and contempt of court. The ITAT highlighted that the Revenue could have appealed to the high court against the Tribunal's decision but failed to do so. Despite this, the ITAT chose not to take further action due to the possibility that the Assessing Officer acted in haste for public interest, urging caution and consultation with seniors before engaging in such controversial actions.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the rule of law in tax assessments.