9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer in making assessment orders for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72, legality of Tribunal's order reopening assessment, authority of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner u/s 144B, scope of action post remand by appellate authority.
Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer: The petitioner sought to quash assessment orders for 1970-71 and 1971-72, alleging that the Income-tax Officer exceeded jurisdiction by making additions without authority from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Tribunal. Legality of Tribunal's order: The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's order reopening the assessment was beyond the scope of appeal, and the Income-tax Officer disregarded directions from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, acting improperly and without jurisdiction. Authority of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner u/s 144B: The petitioner contended that proceedings u/s 144B rendered by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were infructuous, but subsequent actions were permissible only within the scope of remand orders. Scope of action post remand: The court noted that authorities post remand cannot exceed the scope set by the appellate authority, emphasizing that actions must align with the directions given in the remand order to maintain jurisdictional integrity. The court referenced the decision in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) to highlight the limitations on the Tribunal's jurisdiction, emphasizing that actions post-remand must adhere to the scope set by the appellate authority. The court clarified that while authorities can proceed post-remand within legal bounds, any actions beyond the remand order's scope would be unwarranted and without jurisdiction. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing that authorities post-remand must act within the confines of the remand order and any directions given by the appellate authority. The court made it clear that actions beyond the scope of remand would be improper, and the writ petition was thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
