9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment though the assessment was made under section 143(3), books of account were not produced. It was, however, stated before the learned AAC that the books of account were with the assessee and could be produced. The books of account were impounded by the learned AAC for further scrutiny. The AAC, however, felt that since the books of account had not been produced before the Assessing Officer it would be in the fitness of things that these were examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also submitted before the learned AAC that it wanted to make a disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme. The learned AAC, therefore, thought it proper to set aside the assessment vide his order dated 25th February, 1986, with the directions to the Assessing Officer to frame a de novo assessment after a thorough scrutiny of the books of account. He also advised the Assessing Officer to consider the proposal under the Amnesty Scheme put forth by the assessee. 3. The assessee filed a revised return on 21st March, 1986, declaring a total income of ₹ 85,897. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the IT Act on 15th July, 1986, to assess the escaped income. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer who reopened the assessment proceeding was aware of the fact that the learned AAC had set aside the order and hence the proceedings for assessment year 1982-83 were already pending. He requested that the record of the assessee in the office of the learned AAC be summoned or produced so that the facts could be properly projected and appreciated. It was also submitted that the demand and collection (D C) register of the Assessing Officer may also be directed to be produced so that it could be verified whether before 31st March, 1986, the Assessing Officer himself had deleted the demand because the case was set aside by the first appellate authority. 7. The learned Departmental Representative was accordingly requested by the Bench to produce the AAC s folder as also the demand and collection register maintained by the Assessing Officer. Despite repeated opportunities, the demand and collection register was not produced on the ground that the same was not available. The AAC s folder was, however, produced, a perusal of which showed that the learned AAC has written a D.O. letter dated 19th March, 1986, to Shri S. S. Goyal, ITO, Distt. II(2), Ludhiana, ask ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held the notice under section 148 as invalid, whether the present proceedings should be quashed. We, however, find that the matter had already been set aside by the learned AAC with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make a de novo assessment. Books of account of the assessee had been produced for the first time before the first appellate authority and these books had to be gone into by the Assessing Officer. The assessee s disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme was also to be taken into consideration. The assessee had in the meantime filed a revised return which also had to be taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while completing the fresh assessment. The mere fact that a reference has been made in the assessment order from which the present appeal has emerged, does not mean that that order is passed only in the reassessment proceedings. In our opinion, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 30th March, 1989, is a composite order which not only takes into consideration the fact of proceedings having been reopened under section 148 but also the fact that the proceedings have been set aside by the first appellate authority was, therefore, the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above decisions, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned Dy. CIT also had no authority to review his earlier directions and that the issuance of different directions had vitiated the assessment order which was liable to be quashed. 13. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that there was no bar to the learned Dy. CIT reviewing his earlier directions and, in any case, the third direction was issued only because the assessee asked for an opportunity of hearing which had not been granted to it when the second direction was issued. 14. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the learned Dy. CIT could not review his directions from time to time. In the first letter containing the direction the learned Dy. CIT had asked the Assessing Officer to make an addition of ₹ 1,37,948. Then he reviewed his directions and asked the Assessing Officer to make an addition of ₹ 3,45,032 and finally, he revised the directions after hearing the assessee firm and asked the Assessing Officer to make an addition of ₹ 3,17,219. Since the assessee itself h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in regard relied on the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Bhalla Brothers [1981] 10 TLR 215. It was submitted that in the said case, the addition made by the Revenue was deleted by the Tribunal and the High Court held that the addition had been properly deleted and that no question of law arose. Relying on the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarachand Shantilal v. ITO [1987] 28 TTJ (Jp.) 128, it was submitted that in case like this where unaccounted for purchases were suspected, the only addition which could be made was for estimating a suitable profit on the sales made outside the books of account. It was submitted that the assessee had declared gross profit rate of 4% and on that basis only an addition of ₹ 12,000 or so could be made which was much less than had been offered by the assessee under the Amnesty Scheme at ₹ 50,000. It was, therefore, submitted that no further addition was called for and if at all any addition had to be made, the same should have been covered by the amount of ₹ 50,000 offered by the assessee itself. 19. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf could be sustained as addition in the assessee s hands. The addition of ₹ 2,67,219 is accordingly deleted. 21. The last issue is regarding the charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 217. The learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue on the ground that charging of interest under the aforesaid sections was not appealable. We do not agree with the finding of the learned CIT(A). Charging of interest is a part of the process of assessment and since the assessee is challenging certain other additions, the assessee was within its power to challenge the charging of interest as well. 22. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, submitted that because of the Punjab Haryana High Court decision in the case of Smt. Kamla Vati v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 248 (P H), since the assessment order was under section 147, it was not a regular assessment and hence interest under the aforesaid sections could not be charged. 23. We have already discussed this issue above and come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was a composite order. We have already held above that the notice issued under section 148 was not valid in law. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
