9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er cent. I am remitting this portion also to the assessing officer for fresh consideration and to rectify the error, if any, as pointed out by the appellants". Thereafter, the assessing officer passed a consequential order in pursuance of the directions given by the AAC in his order dated May 7, 1983. 2. According to the assessing officer the AAC in his proceedings remanded the case on the following points: (i) to consider the rectification of defects in 7 "C" forms by filing the rectified duplicate copy of "C" forms. (ii) to consider the wrong classification of Rs. 5,000 under 10 per cent category in annexure A. According to the assessing officer 7 Nos. of duplicate C forms have been examined and found that the defects pointed out earlier were rectified. The "C" forms covered a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,29,963. This will now be taxed at 4 per cent instead of 10 per cent already assessed. According to the assessing officer, there was a totalling error in annexure A thereby a turnover of Rs. 5,000 was assessed to tax at 10 per cent in excess. This will now be deducted from 10 per cent category and added to 4 per cent. Further, the assessing officer rectified the mistake and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng addition of Rs. 5,000 to the turnover taxable at 4 per cent. It was submitted that the earlier assessment order has become final and it is not open to the assessing authority to go beyond the scope of the appellate order, when passing the order afresh consequent to the remand order. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have followed the principles laid down in [1974] 34 STC 517 (AP) (Kaliki Veera Reddy and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh), [1977] 39 STC 285 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited). The Tribunal erred in directing the AAC to go into the merits of the disputes not raised in the appeal against the original assessment raised when the assessing officer has actually complied with the terms of the remand order of the AAC. As against the said order, no appeal can be preferred by the assessee to the AAC since the assessee is not aggrieved. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) the Tribunal failed to appreciate the scope of the remand order of the AAC. 5.. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted as under: W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in 7 "C" forms by filing the rectified duplicate copies of "C" forms; and (2) to consider the wrong classification of Rs. 5,000 under 10 per cent category in annexure A. 8.. After remand, while the assessing officer examining the 7 Nos. "C" forms found that the defects pointed out earlier were rectified. The "C" forms covered a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,29,963. This was taxed at 4 per cent instead of 10 per cent already assessed. The assessing officer also found that there was a totalling error in annexure A and thereby a turnover of Rs. 5,000 was assessed to tax at 10 per cent in excess. This was deducted from 10 per cent category and added to 4 per cent. Besides that the assessee pointed out before the assessing officer that a turnover of Rs. 12,589.50 under the annexure B were wrongly assessed at 13 per cent instead of 10 per cent as the goods sold were other than auto parts. This was accepted by the assessing officer. This was also rectified and thus the turnover of Rs. 12,589.50 was taxed at 10 per cent. 9.. As against this order, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC. In the second round before the first appellate authority, the assessee disputed the following t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second time disputing the turnover originally assessed in the original assessment. Therefore, the AAC in his order dated October 29, 1984 held that the appellants have no case at all and the appeal does not merit any consideration. However, the Tribunal, on second appeal, remanded the disputed turnover to the AAC. The Tribunal directed the assessee to reconcile the disputed turnover as found in column 8(c) of appeal petition with that found in the grounds urged before the Tribunal. 10.. According to learned counsel appearing for the assessee when the assessment order is set aside and remanded in whole or in part the assessment proceedings are restored or revived for consideration by the assessing authority and fresh assessment in its entirety has to be passed by the assessing officer in the light of the provisions empowering the assessing authority, but only subject to the direction of the appellate authority. Reliance was placed on the following decisions, viz., Senniyappa Mudaliar v. Government of Madras ILR (1965) 2 Mad. 397, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Seth Manicklal Fomra [1975] 99 ITR 470 (Mad.) and Income-tax Officer v. Seghu Buchiah Setty AIR 1964 SC 1473; [1964] 52 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
