9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 14,27,500. The assessee's objections to this draft were forwarded to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated 13-8-1984 under section 144B (4) directed the ITO to allow the deduction as a short-term capital loss. Consequently, the assessment was made on 13 -8-1984 by the ITO allowing such a deduction. The assessee appealed against the assessment in respect of other matters. While the appeal was pending, the IAC wrote a letter dated 18-1-1988 to the CIT (Appeals) stating that the allowance of the capital loss was not correct and, therefore, the CIT (Appeals) should enhance the assessment by a sum of Rs. 14,27,500. Thereupon the CIT (Appeals) issued a notice dated 29-3-1989 to the assessee proposing to enhance the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the subsequent introduction of an Explanation to that section to enable such a revision to point out that such an assessment is not regarded as an ordinary assessment as such. It was also argued that under the power of enhancement, the CIT (Appeals) can only direct the Assessing Officer to do what he had failed to do as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 and as in this case he had not failed by giving effect to the direction under section 144B, there could be no enhancement. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if the petition for enhancement were to be entertained the Commissioner (Appeals) should have himself decided the issue without remitting the matter to the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer would confine himself to the issue remitted back to him and perhaps repeat the other parts of the assessment as in the original assessment. 5. We have considered the submissions and have perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the decisions cited before us. We find that the assessment was made under section 144B(5) because the direction given by the IAC under that section was binding on the Assessing Officer. When the appeal came before the CIT (Appeals) his power, no doubt, extended over the assessment but he could only direct the Assessing Officer to do what he has failed to do as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Coal Syndicate In the present case can it be said that the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
