Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisional authority could sustain the reassessment orders by relying on material outside the assessment record and on a later tribunal pronouncement, and whether the revisional orders were therefore without jurisdiction or otherwise unsustainable.
Analysis: The revisional power under section 12 was held to be limited to examination of the record of assessment. The order under challenge did not meet the assessees' contention that the authority must confine itself to the existing record, and instead proceeded on an assumption that the assessees were first purchasers liable to tax. The basis for reopening was not found in the assessment records, but in a later tribunal view about wholesale dealers in the area being commission agents, which was treated as material outside the permissible revisional record. The retrospective validation by the amending Act removed the objection based on want of notification, but it did not authorise revision on extraneous material.
Conclusion: The revisional orders were unsustainable for having been founded on material outside the assessment record, and the appeals were dismissed in favour of the assessees.
Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, the authority must confine itself to the assessment record and cannot reopen completed assessments on the basis of extraneous material or assumptions not borne out by that record.