9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty against the appellant. The appellant is manufacturer of hot rolled steel products and opted working under compounded levy scheme. Penalty has been imposed under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for delayed payment. 2. Learned advocate submitted that during the relevant time, the penal clause in Rule 96ZP(3) was non-existent and was introduced only from 1-5-98. While he fairly agrees that this issue was not raised till now, he submits that being a legal issue can be raised at any time. Further, he also submitted that even at the time of hearing by the Tribunal earlier, when the matter was remanded for the purpose of verifying whether any penalty has been imposed on the appellant, this issue had not been taken up. He contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings. It was taken in collateral proceedings. Reassessment under Section 147 was made on August 27, 1959. More or less a consent order was obtained in appeal there against as a result of which the order of assessment stood set aside for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the assessee to prove the genuineness of certain cash credits. The ground questioning jurisdiction to reassess was not raised even in the second round of proceedings before the Income tax officer who completed reassessment afresh on March 28, 1970. No such ground was taken originally even in the appeal filed against the second assessment. The ground in dispute was taken at the time of hearing before the appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the latest decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his own previous findings. He can take into account materials not previously existing and tax income not originally assessed. Likewise, it may be open to the assessee to raise objections to the assessment or to the quantum which he had not raised originally before him or the appellate Assistant Commissioner. The other view is that the income tax officer is, while passing orders in pursuance of the orders of the appellate authority, required to consider only those matters about which there was a dispute before the appellate authority and directions had been given. Even where the appellate order does not contain such specific directions, under certain circumstances, it may have to be read as remitting the case only on the issues in appeal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless the assessee had come in the reference to this court at that stage." CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas Another - 1975 (100) ITR 734, 1973 Indlaw Guj 28 : "We respectfully agree with the observations of the learned judges of the High Court of Madras and apply that principle to the facts of the present case. In our opinion, right from April, 1954, the proceedings in reassessment were wholly void and illegal. In view of that conclusion, it necessarily follows that the appellate Assistant Commissioner could not confer jurisdiction on the income tax officer to decide the question on merits when he passed the order on Sept. 12, 1959. The jurisdiction of the income tax officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 34 is a jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
