2001 (3) TMI 244 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against common order passed by CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86
- Reopening of assessments under s. 147(a) for asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86
- Cancellation of reassessments based on transactions with M/s Ram Kumar Parshotam Dass
- Difference of opinion among the members of ITAT regarding the validity of reassessments

Analysis:
1. The appeals were directed against a common order by CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86. The original assessments for the years 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85 were framed under section 143(3) of the IT Act. Notices under section 148 were issued for these years similar to 1981-82. The ITAT, Amritsar, based on a previous order, canceled the reassessments for these three years and also for 1985-86 citing that transactions with M/s Ram Kumar Parshotam Dass were not bogus. Consequently, all four appeals were allowed, and the reassessments were canceled.

2. In a separate judgment, one of the members upheld the reopening of assessments under section 147(a) for the four years after necessary approval from the CIT. However, on merits, the matter was restored back to the AO for fresh adjudication based on observations from a previous order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes only by this member.

3. A difference of opinion arose among the members of the ITAT regarding the validity of the reassessments. The matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal for decision. The President, as the third member, upheld the order of another member who approved the reopening of assessments under section 147(a) and restoring the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication based on previous observations. The case was to go back to the Division Bench for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the ITAT, Amritsar, dealt with the appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for multiple assessment years, addressing the reopening of assessments, cancellation of reassessments based on transaction genuineness, and resolving a difference of opinion among its members regarding the validity of reassessments.