9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the order of remand by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reassess the cost of construction of a house after the original assessment was set aside. Detailed Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee concerning the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee, a partner in a firm, constructed a house and declared expenses of Rs. 65,803, supported by a valuer's report estimating the cost at Rs. 69,402. Initially, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) accepted this explanation and assessed the income at Rs. 22,470. However, upon receiving complaints of tax evasion, the ITO conducted further inquiries and determined the actual cost of construction to be Rs. 1,12,300. Consequently, an additional amount of Rs. 56,299 was added to the declared income as investment from undisclosed sources. The matter was appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), where the assessee contended that the ITO exceeded his jurisdiction by reassessing the investment in the property when the case was remanded solely for reconsidering the annual letting value of the self-occupied portion. The AAC rejected these contentions, leading to a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the addition but upheld the reassessment by the ITO, stating that the ITO had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment due to income escaping assessment. The Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court regarding the justification of the reassessment of the cost of construction. The High Court observed that the real issue was whether the ITO had the authority to reassess the investment in construction after the original assessment was set aside. Analyzing the order of remand by the AAC, the High Court concluded that the assessment order was entirely set aside, giving the ITO the discretion to reassess the entire matter without limitations. Citing precedents, the High Court held that when an assessment order is set aside entirely, the ITO can conduct a fresh assessment as if there was no prior assessment. In light of the above analysis, the High Court answered the question in favor of the department and against the assessee, emphasizing that the ITO had the jurisdiction to reassess the investment in construction after the original assessment was set aside. The judgment highlights the significance of the order of remand in determining the scope of reassessment by tax authorities and underscores the principle that setting aside an assessment order allows for a fresh assessment without restrictions.
|
