2017 (12) TMI 1526 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 158BC - additions on account of undisclosed income - Held that - Admit, the following question of law arises for consideration Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment order without either restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer or itself examining the assessment on merits?

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of additions made in the fresh assessment.
3. Interpretation of the scope of proceedings after remand.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge to an assessment order originally framed under section 158BC read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the original assessment order and directed the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the law. The fresh assessment was completed with significant additions on account of undisclosed income, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal.

2. The first issue addressed by the Tribunal was the verbatim repetition of additions in the fresh assessment order compared to the original assessment order. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had disregarded its directions, leading to the order being set aside. The Tribunal rejected the request to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer due to the substantial time that had passed since the original assessment.

3. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal clarified that the scope of proceedings after remand was limited to considering the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order. The Tribunal emphasized that any new additions made by the Assessing Officer in the fresh assessment, not present in the original assessment, exceeded the directions of the Tribunal. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer had overstepped the Tribunal's directions.

4. The respondent's counsel relied on a previous court decision to support their argument, highlighting that the Tribunal's decision on the second issue aligned with established legal principles. The Tribunal's order on the second issue was deemed legally sound and consistent with the court's precedent, thereby concluding that no legal infirmity existed to raise a question of law.

5. The judgment raised a specific question of law related to the Tribunal's action in setting aside the assessment order without either restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer or conducting a fresh examination on merits. This question was deemed crucial for further consideration in the context of the case.