1998 (7) TMI 114 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional error in assessment by Assessing Officer.
2. Delay in filing departmental appeals.
3. Validity of assessment orders under sections 148 and 142(1).
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court decision in Industrial Trust Ltd. case.
5. Competence of Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction.
6. Double assessment issue due to actions of different Assessing Officers.
7. Compliance with legal procedures and provisions.
8. Application of section 124 regarding objections filed by assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the CIT (Appeals) order for assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, challenging the cancellation of assessments by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also filed cross objections, asserting that the jurisdiction for the case lies at Siliguri, not Calcutta, based on the Supreme Court decision in Industrial Trust Ltd. case.

2. The departmental appeals were filed 24 days late, but the delay was condoned after considering the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer. The appeals were admitted for further review.

3. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) to the assessee, but as there was no response, he proceeded to pass the assessment order under section 144. The jurisdictional dispute arose as the Assessing Officer claimed authority based on CBDT orders and the Industrial Trust Ltd. case.

4. The CIT (Appeals) considered the submissions of both parties and the Supreme Court decision in Industrial Trust Ltd. case. He concluded that the jurisdiction should be at Siliguri, not Calcutta, and canceled the assessments based on this interpretation.

5. The Revenue contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in canceling the assessments, citing CBDT orders and the Industrial Trust Ltd. case. However, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction and competence were questioned, leading to a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and factual circumstances.

6. The issue of double assessment arose due to actions by different Assessing Officers at Calcutta and Siliguri, resulting in a violation of natural justice principles. The assessments made in Calcutta were deemed null and void, leading to the cancellation upheld by the CIT (Appeals).

7. The Assessing Officer's failure to act upon relevant letters and legal procedures, such as section 124 requirements, was highlighted as a procedural lapse affecting the validity of the assessments.

8. The application of legal pronouncements and provisions of law to the factual background revealed several irregularities and violations, leading to the conclusion that the assessments made in Calcutta were null and void. The CIT (Appeals) decision to cancel the assessments was upheld based on these legal and factual considerations.