9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competency of Income-tax Officer to redo assessment after annulment of original order. 2. Revival of power to redo assessment by Income-tax Officer after annulment by Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Analysis: The judgment addressed the issue of whether the Income-tax Officer had the authority to redo the assessment of a dissolved firm after the original assessment order was annulled. The firm in question was dissolved, and one of its partners had passed away. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice for assessment, which led to an order of assessment. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner later annulled this order due to irregularities in the filing of returns. The Income-tax Officer then proceeded to make fresh assessment orders based on returns filed by the partners. The main contention was whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's annulment required a remand for fresh assessment by the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer could revive the proceedings and make a fresh order without a specific remand. The Appellate Tribunal also emphasized that each notice to the partners constituted an independent proceeding. The assessee argued that without a remand order, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make a fresh assessment. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar regarding the effect of invalid orders on proceedings. The judgment extensively discussed the legal principles surrounding the validity of orders of assessment and the authority of assessing officers to make fresh assessments. It was highlighted that even if an order is invalid, it remains effective until set aside, and the assessing authority retains the competence to issue a fresh order. The judgment differentiated between void, voidable, and invalid orders, emphasizing that the assessing authority's competence to make a fresh assessment depends on the nature of the appellate authority's order. The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer was within his competence to make a fresh assessment after the annulment of the original order, as the earlier order was deemed to be without jurisdiction against the firm. The judgment rejected the argument that the Income-tax Officer had become functus officio and affirmed the authority to proceed with fresh assessments in such circumstances. In conclusion, the court answered the questions in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the Revenue and affirming the Income-tax Officer's competency to redo the assessment without a specific remand order in the given factual and legal context. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing the authority of assessing officers in redoing assessments after the annulment of original orders, emphasizing the distinction between void, voidable, and invalid orders in the context of income tax assessments.
|
