9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a fresh assessment, when the assessment completed on 4-10-1988 had not been found to have existed in law and when the valid order of assessment passed earlier on 31-12-1987 had already existed and had attained finality ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the view that the Commissioner had not made out a case as to how and in what manner the order of assessment made on 4-10-1988 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, when the Commissioner had in fact decided on this point vide penultimate para of the order ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, the Assessing Officer before whom the second return was filed under the 'Amnesty Scheme' declined to accept the same and initiated a proceeding under section 147 of the Act to include the fresh income of ₹ 6,000 disclosed in the 'Amnesty Scheme'. On 31-12-1987 the Assessing Officer passed order of reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act computing income at ₹ 2,46,790, i.e., ₹ 6,000 more than the amount computed in the order dated 25-3-1986. On 3-5-1988 the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the reassessment order dated 31-12-1987, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 31-12-1987. On 13-6-1987 the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Mr. U. Bhuyan, the learned junior counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. R.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the assessee. Mr. Bhuyan submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the direction was not necessary inasmuch as the reassessment order was already in force. On the other hand, Mr. Joshi submits that under the provisions of section 263 the Commissioner was not justified in cancel- ling the order dated 4-10-1988, inasmuch as, no direction was given for fresh assessment. Regarding question No. 2, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the Commissioner has given the details how the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, to which Mr. Joshi raises objection. On the rival contentions of the parties it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to my predecessor I come to hold the opinion that the order of revision passed on 13-6-1988 did not stand the test of law, it having set aside an assessment which is non est. It follows therefrom that the order of assessment of 4-10-1988 passed as it was in pursuance of directions contained in the said revision order is a nullity. The Income-tax Act does not anywhere provide for more than one assessment for a particular year of assessment at a given point of time. Even assuming for a moment but not admitting that the order did have for it a basis in law it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue inasmuch as it had been completed without any enquiry being done. Such enquiries were definitely called for, the Assessing Officer earlier h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
