9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the original assessment orders dated 29-9-1984 were set aside or annulled by the DC(A) vide order dated 28-4-1988. 2. Whether the assessment orders dated 29-1-1990 reframed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of DC(A)'s order dated 28-4-1988 were barred by limitation. 3. Whether the assessment orders dated 29-1-1990 were otherwise invalid or without jurisdiction. 4. Whether the DC(A) was justified in canceling the assessment orders dated 29-1-1990. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the original assessment orders dated 29-9-1984 were set aside or annulled by the DC(A) vide order dated 28-4-1988. The DC(A) set aside the original assessment orders dated 29-9-1984 and restored the matters to the file of the ITO with directions to decide the matters afresh in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant. The term "set aside" was used, indicating that the assessments were not annulled but rather required further consideration by the ITO. The distinction between "set aside" and "annul" is crucial, as "set aside" allows for the possibility of reassessment, whereas "annul" would completely invalidate the original assessment. Issue 2: Whether the assessment orders dated 29-1-1990 reframed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of DC(A)'s order dated 28-4-1988 were barred by limitation. The assessments made on 29-1-1990 were within the limitation period prescribed under section 153(2A) of the Act, which allows for reassessment within two years from the end of the financial year in which the appellate order was received. Since the DC(A)'s order was received in the financial year 1988-89, the reassessment completed on 29-1-1990 was within the permissible time frame, expiring on 31-3-1991. Issue 3: Whether the assessment orders dated 29-1-1990 were otherwise invalid or without jurisdiction. The DC(A) had directed the ITO to decide the matters afresh, which included the computation of tax and the validity of the notice of demand. The ITO's actions in issuing notices and requiring the production of books of account were within the scope of the directions given by the DC(A). The reassessment was not invalid or without jurisdiction, as it was conducted in compliance with the DC(A)'s directions. Issue 4: Whether the DC(A) was justified in canceling the assessment orders dated 29-1-1990. The DC(A) was not justified in canceling the reassessment orders dated 29-1-1990. The reassessment was conducted within the prescribed time limit and in accordance with the directions given by the DC(A). The reassessment orders were valid and within jurisdiction, and the DC(A) erred in canceling them. Conclusion: The original assessment orders dated 29-9-1984 were set aside, not annulled, by the DC(A). The reassessment orders dated 29-1-1990 were within the limitation period and were valid and within jurisdiction. The DC(A) was not justified in canceling these reassessment orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, and the orders of the DC(A) canceling the reassessment orders are reversed.
|
