9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by the Assessing Officer". 2. The brief facts relating to these appeals are that the Tribunal had set aside certain findings of the CIT(A) where relief had been allowed to the assessee. The said issues were restored back by the Tribunal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer passed orders dated 10-10-1991 in relation to assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 for giving effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 22-8-1991. While giving appeal effect to the order, the Assessing Officer also revived income-tax demand of Rs. 4,37,098 in relation to assessment year 1981-82 and of Rs. 1,36,899 in relation to assessment year 1982-83 with reference to the issues which are restored by the Tribunal to the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) for fresh hearing after hearing the assessee and the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had only said that "I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and find that the claim of the assessee is in order and thus entitled to further relief of Rs. 4,73,635 which is allowed". The Tribunal directed the first appellate authority to pass a speaking order on the issue. Similar directions were given in relation to assessment year 1982-83 with reference to deduction of expenditure of Rs. 4,73,635. The next issue considered by the Tribunal related to bad debt which had been allowed by the ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that while the accounting period of the assessee in relation to ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the submissions made before us by both the parties as also the intervener, Shri Subhash Aggarwal. We feel that the action of the ld. CIT(A) is justified in law as there is no provision in the Act which stops the Assessing Officer from recovering the demand in relation to additions which may not have been upheld by the Tribunal but deletion whereof have been restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A). We may mention that the only course open under law to stop the raising of demand and recovery thereof is where stay is granted by the appropriate authority on the recovery of such demand, which is not the case in the present appeals. We may also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the process of assessment, the notices of demand issued by the ITO u/s 29 may be enforced in the manner provided by section 46 and within the period of limitation provided in section 46(7), even after the appeal against the order of assessment by the ITO, is disposed off, subject to adjustment of the amount to be recovered in the light of the order of the AAC. He further observed that a person who has failed to comply with a notice of demand would continue to be defaulter notwithstanding the reduction of his liability by an order of the appellate authority. He also observed that there is only one exception to this rule and that is when the order of assessment is wholly set aside.' We feel that the ratio of the said decision, including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
