1994 (9) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Court bars reassessment notice under Estate Duty Act, 1953, for being time-barred. Respondent must limit assessment to remanded issue.

Faizunnissa Begam Versus Assistant Controller Of Estate-Duty

Faizunnissa Begam Versus Assistant Controller Of Estate-Duty - [1995] 214 ITR 749 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.2. Scope of the remand order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Applicability of the limitation period under Section 73A(b) of the Estate Duty Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953:The petitioner challenges the notice dated February 6, 1985, issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, arguing that it is barred by limitation as per Section 73A(b) of the Act. The original assessment was made on January 31, 1974, and a fresh assessment was completed on December 18, 1975, following a remand by the Appellate Controller. The petitioner contends that any reassessment should have been completed within three years from the date of the original assessment, i.e., by January 31, 1977. The respondent, however, claims that the reassessment falls under Section 58 of the Act, which does not prescribe a limitation period.2. Scope of the remand order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:The Tribunal's order dated December 30, 1977, remanded the issue concerning the inclusion of 40 cents of land in the estate of the deceased back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the remand was restricted to the specific issue considered in the appeal and did not cover other matters that had already been concluded. The relevant passage from the Tribunal's order states: 'We set aside the order of assessment of the Assistant Controller and the appellate order of the Appellate Controller and direct that the matter should be considered afresh. We, however, add that the direction covers only the consideration of the issue which has arisen in the appeal before us and does not cover matters which have been concluded.'3. Applicability of the limitation period under Section 73A(b) of the Estate Duty Act:The court held that the Tribunal's remand was expressly restricted to one particular issue, and the respondent could only make a fresh assessment concerning that issue. The assessment related to other matters, which had already been concluded by earlier orders, falls under Section 59 of the Act and is governed by the limitation period prescribed in Section 73A. For reassessment, it cannot be done after the expiration of three years from the date of the original assessment. The respondent's claim that the proposed reassessment is under Section 58 and thus not subject to any limitation period was rejected. The court found no evidence of a notice issued under Section 59 within the prescribed period of limitation, as the respondent failed to produce any such notice despite being directed by the court.Conclusion:The court concluded that the impugned notice dated February 6, 1985, is barred by limitation concerning matters other than the specific issue remanded by the Tribunal. The respondent is directed to confine the assessment proceedings to the issue considered by the Tribunal and remanded for fresh consideration. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.