1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court clarifies Income-tax Officer's authority in redoing assessments set aside by Appellate Tribunal.</h1> The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of whether the Appellate Tribunal correctly restricted the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in redoing ... Agricultural Income Tax, Association Of Individuals, Initial Depreciation Issues:Restriction on jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer in redoing assessments after setting aside by Tribunal.Analysis:The High Court of Madras was tasked with addressing the issue of whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in restricting the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer when redoing assessments that were set aside. The case involved assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer had completed the assessments for these years, which were confirmed by the first appellate authority. However, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, citing inability to represent the case due to detention under COFEPOSA, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the assessments and remitting the matters back to the Income-tax Officer for reassessment.The Tribunal directed that in the fresh assessments, the Income-tax Officer should not exceed the quantum of income determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal proceedings. The Department, represented by the standing counsel, argued that such restriction on the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction was not permissible, citing a previous decision of the court. The court referred to the decision in CIT v. Seth Manicklal Fomra, which emphasized that once an assessment is set aside, the Income-tax Officer has the authority to consider the entire matter afresh without limitations imposed by the previous order.The court noted that in this case, the Tribunal had indeed set aside the assessments and directed the Income-tax Officer to redo the assessments, but the restriction on not exceeding the income limit determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not valid. The court held that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer cannot be restricted in such a manner once assessments are set aside for fresh assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to limit the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction was deemed incorrect, and the question was answered in the negative, in favor of the Department. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
