9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on/ brokerage. It appears that the company had deducted the tax payable on this commission at source. In April, 1956, the assessee-trust filed an application before the Income-tax Officer under section 48 of the Indian Incometax Act, 1922, for the refund of the tax deducted at source. Its plea was that the assessee was a charitable trust not liable to tax. This plea was repelled by the Income-tax Officer, who in view of the C.B.R.'s order No. FN 20/20162-I.T. (Al) dated August 9, 1962, brought this amount of Rs. 82,053 to tax; and after taking into account the amount deducted at source in respect of tax payable on it, raised a demand of Rs. 14,921.99. He directed that this amount has been adjusted with the refund due to the trust for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He held that the assessment was barred by limitation and was void. The assessment was cancelled. Being aggrieved, the Department went up in appeal to the Tribunal, but failed. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law had been referred for our opinion: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the saving provision in the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not applicable and the assessment was barred by limitation, the same not having been made within the period specified in the main paragraph of the said section 34(3) ? " The second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand to the assessee to make all claims and all arguments in that assessment. " It is apparent that the intent, purpose or import of the finding or direction in the appellate order will determine the character, scope and limitations of the reassessment proceedings. In the present case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held as follows : " I have admitted the additional ground taken up by the appellant's representative as it raises a pure question of law. It appears that the Income-tax Officer has passed the order under section 48 though no such section has been mentioned in the order at all. I am also in agreement with the appellant's stand that if the Income-tax Officer wanted to bring the amount of Rs. 82,053 to tax, he should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as other applicable provisions of law. It is true that the question whether the assessment as originally made was barred by limitation or the question whether the reassessment that may follow after the remand will also be barred by limitation was not raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not apply his mind or advert to this aspect of the matter. On the other hand, he left the entire matter open including the question of limitation. He specifically directed that the fresh assessment order may be passed after fulfilling all the requisite formalities and following the procedure laid down in the Act and to make the fresh assessment according to law. This was not a case where it could b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
