2016 (2) TMI 112 - AT - Wealth-tax

Second / Third round of litigation - validity of order of AO - the learned AR of the assessee has forcefully contended that the subsequent order dated 28/12/2006 passed by the AO is without jurisdiction when the AO has already passed order dated 25/3/1997 in pursuance to the order of the CWT(A) dated 30/12/1994 which was not disturbed either by this Tribunal or by the Hon ble High Court. Therefore, second order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and therefore, is null and void. Held that - When the AO has already given effect to the order of the CWT(A) dated 30/12/1994 and that order has not been disturbed by the Hon ble High Court, then in the absence of any fresh direction or any change in the scope of the remand proceedings by virtue of the order of the Hon ble High Court, the AO was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings in the third round despite the fact that the proceedings in the second round have already attained finality. We further note that the second round came to an end on 18/9/2002 when the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and the revenue has not pointed out this development of the second round of litigation arising in pursuance to the giving effect order passed by the AO dated 25/3/1997 to the Hon ble High Court at the time of hearing of the appeal of the revenue which was disposed of vide order dated 11/5/2005. The impugned order dated 28/12/2006 passed by the AO purported to give effect to the order of the Hon ble High Court dated 11/7/2005 is without jurisdiction when the AO had already passed a giving effect order dated 25/3/1997 and the proceedings arising from the said order has already attained finality. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of the order passed by the AO giving effect to the directions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court.

Analysis:
The appeal by the assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (A) dismissing the appeal, raising various grounds. The legal issue focused on the validity of the AO's order dated 28/12/2006, following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's directive. The assessee contended that the subsequent order lacked jurisdiction as the AO had already passed an order in 1997, which was not disturbed by the Tribunal or the High Court. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the AO's 2006 order was in accordance with the High Court's directions. The Tribunal noted multiple assessment orders, appeals, and directions, emphasizing that the Tribunal's previous decisions remained final as they were not overturned by the High Court. The Tribunal found that the AO's 2006 order, given the finality of previous proceedings, lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, rendering other grounds raised by the assessee moot. The appeal was allowed.

This detailed analysis showcases the legal intricacies surrounding the validity of the AO's order in light of previous proceedings and the High Court's directives. The Tribunal's decision to quash the 2006 order highlights the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and adherence to legal directives, ensuring a fair and just resolution in the matter.