1969 (4) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeals by the department against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Legality of the Tribunal's direction to the Income-tax Officer to re-do the assessment for specific years.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeals
The High Court addressed the first issue concerning the maintainability of the appeals filed by the department against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court highlighted that the objection of the Commissioner under section 33(2) may extend to what the order has omitted to say, not just what it has stated. The court emphasized that the objection for the appeal's maintainability should be based on an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court concluded that the first question should be answered against the assessee, indicating that the appeals were maintainable despite certain jurisdictional considerations.

Issue 2: Legality of Tribunal's Direction
Regarding the second issue, the High Court examined the legality of the Tribunal's direction to the Income-tax Officer to re-do the assessment for specific years. The court clarified that the scope of the second question did not involve the applicability of the second proviso to section 34(3) but was to be considered within the context of section 33(2). The court noted that the Tribunal, under section 33(4), had the authority to pass orders it deemed fit after hearing both parties. The court opined that the Tribunal was within its legal rights to give the direction to re-do the assessments, considering that the assessment orders had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court ruled against the assessee on this issue as well, affirming the legality of the Tribunal's direction.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the maintainability of the appeals by the department and deemed the Tribunal's direction to re-do the assessments as legal within the framework of the relevant provisions. The court clarified that the effect of the direction on the bar of limitation was a separate matter not addressed in the current reference, leaving it open for the assessee to raise such issues in subsequent proceedings.