2007 (11) TMI 264 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the appeals filed against the protective assessments require to be allowed without going into the merits merely because a substantive assessment (passed by the Income Tax Officer/assessing authority) is set aside by the superior forum Held that tribunal is not justified n allowing the department s appeal without going into merits of the case either tribunal could have kept the appeals filed by the Department pending or in the alternative it could have decided the appeals on merits

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) based on the Central Excise authorities' confirmation.
2. Tribunal's direction to the assessing officer to decide the matter afresh after the substantive assessment of Tolin Rubbers (P) Limited was set aside.
3. Appropriateness of the Tribunal directing the assessing officer to decide protective assessments afresh.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO regarding the finalization of protective assessments awaiting the outcome of substantive assessments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision to Set Aside the Order of the CIT (Appeals):
The appellants questioned whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the CIT (Appeals) order, which held that there was no basis for the continuation of protective assessments against the appellants due to the Central Excise authorities' confirmation that no case had been registered against them. The Tribunal's decision was primarily based on the fact that the substantive assessments of Tolin Rubbers Private Limited had been quashed by the High Court, and it remanded the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh decision.

2. Tribunal's Direction to Decide the Matter Afresh:
The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to decide the matter afresh, especially since the substantive assessment of Tolin Rubbers (P) Limited was set aside by the High Court. The appellants argued that the Tribunal should have decided the appeals on their merits rather than remanding the matter. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the High Court's order, which quashed the substantive assessments due to a violation of natural justice principles, and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority.

3. Appropriateness of Directing the Assessing Officer to Decide Protective Assessments Afresh:
The Tribunal's direction to the assessing officer to decide the protective assessments afresh was challenged on the grounds that the initiation of a protective assessment should be determined during the regular assessment of the main assessee (Tolin Rubbers (P) Limited) and not prior to it. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that since the substantive assessments were set aside, it was appropriate to remand the protective assessments for a fresh decision in light of the High Court's directions.

4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO:
The appellants contended that the Tribunal's direction contradicted the Supreme Court's decision in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO, which indicated that the finalization of protective assessments must await the outcome of the substantive assessment. The Supreme Court had held that protective assessments are permissible when there is uncertainty about who is liable for the income, but the final decision on protective assessments should follow the determination of substantive assessments.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal should have either waited for the completion of the substantive assessments by the Income Tax Officer as directed by the High Court or decided the appeals on their merits. The Tribunal's decision to allow the Department's appeals and remand the matter solely based on the quashing of substantive assessments was deemed inappropriate. The High Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with directions to either wait for the completion of substantive assessments or dispose of the appeals on merits. The Tribunal was advised that choosing the first alternative would be in the interest of both the Department and the assessees.