9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer without realising the fact that the direction in the first round of proceeding was limited. - When the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the point of first round was limited for valuing the jewellery which was available to the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment made on March 27, 1991, and when the jewellery which was found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi was not the subject-matter of the original assessment and there was no direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of the jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi. - The Assessing Officer has committed error, in fresh assessment, in taxing the jewellery which was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer has not properly valued the jewellery, therefore, he restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to revalue the ornaments and jewellery and get it valued by an approved valuer. The relevant para. of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reads as under: "But instead of making any relevant enquiries or investigation in the matter the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the appellant in an arbitrary manner by making various presumptions. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to get the said ornaments valued by an approved valuer of the Department before rejecting the claim of the appellant. This issue is therefore restored to the file of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evi and has upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that there was no direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the first round, regarding the valuation of jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi, nor was the assessment order set aside in toto with a direction to make a fresh assessment nor was that jewellery the subject matter in the original assessment, therefore, the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer has gone beyond the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in order dated March 13, 1992, therefore, the addition made by the Income-tax Officer, on the fresh ground that addition is deleted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 250 of the Income-tax Act by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was limited and the Income-tax Officer was not competent to tax the sum of Rs. 4,29,593 when at the time of original assessment, the same was not the subject matter of appeal. In view of this position of law, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be invoked in this case and in deleting the addition made on this account." In the case of Rambilas Chandram v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 344, this court again considered the scope of fresh assessment after direction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax (Appeals) has given the specific directions regarding the assessment of jewellery, that the jewellery which was before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment be got valued by an approved valuer. The relevant directions read as under: "But instead of making any relevant enquiries or investigation in the matter the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the appellant in an arbitrary manner by making various presumptions. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to get the said ornaments valued by an approved valuer of the Department before rejecting the claim of the appellant. This issue is therefore restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions that the said jewellery and ornaments w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he valuation of the ornaments done by the approved valuer who determined the value at Rs. 31,591 of the said ornaments under dispute. As per the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the first round, the assessee is, therefore, entitled to relief of the amount equivalent to the difference between Rs. 13,56,000 and Rs. 31,591. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to allow the relief of Rs. 13,24,409 in the hands of the three brothers equally for the three appeals before us." When the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the point of first round was limited for valuing the jewellery which was available to the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment made on March 27, 1991, and when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
