| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 196 2002 SLD 196 2002 PTD 1252 (2000) 241 ITR 506 (2000) 82 TAX 484 |
Madras High Court
Tax Cases Nos.509 to 515 of 1988 (References Nos.373 to 379 of 1988), decision dated: 26-03-1998
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner
Tax Cases Nos.509 to 515 of 1988 (References Nos.373 to 379 of 1988), decision dated: 26-03-1998
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner
Smt. GOWRI RAJES and others
VS
COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 147,254
Income-tax-----Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Question concluded by earlier order of Tribunal cannot be re-agitated---Tribunal upholding jurisdiction of ITO to reopen assessment under S.147(b) and directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment---No application for reference or rectification against such order---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal from reassessment order-¬Validity of reassessment proceedings cannot be questioned---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 254. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment of the asses see for the assessment year 1973-74 under section '147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and completed the assessments. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) but remitted the matter to the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with certain directions given by it. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessments in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal. There were appeals preferred by the assessees before the first appellate authority. The assessee once again questioned the powers of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment. The appellate authority and the Tribunal held that this could not be done. On a reference: Held, that it was clear that in the earlier order, the Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act and that order of the Tribunal had become final since the assessee had not filed any application either for reference or for rectification under sections 254(2) and 256(1). Therefore, it was not permissible for the assessee to re-agitation the question of reopening of assessment under section 147(b) before the same forum in a subsequent appeal against the assessment completed on the basis of the Tribunal's earlier directions. Senthil Kumar (M.S.P.) v. CIT (2000) 241 ITR.502 (Mad.) fol. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) and Malhotra (R.K.), ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC) ref. JUDGMENT N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.---The above tax case references are at the instance of the assessees and they relate to the assessment years 1971-72 and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492