Commissioner cancels assessment order, Tribunal cites lack of jurisdiction, High Court remands for fresh decision.

The original assessment order was canceled by the Commissioner of Income-tax, directing fresh proceedings. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the appeal, ordering a fresh assessment following the correct procedure. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal canceled the assessment order citing lack of jurisdiction, with a split opinion on the issue of limitation. The case was referred to the President of the Appellate Tribunal for further action, and ultimately to the High Court. The High Court found no majority decision on the limitation issue and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order under section 144B
2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263
3. Bar on assessment by limitation

Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment year 1973-74 where the assessee filed a return showing income of Rs. 2,19,410. The Income-tax Officer finalized the assessment at Rs. 4,71,798, which was later rounded off to Rs. 4,71,800. The order was signed by the Income-tax Officer and served on the assessee. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under section 263 to revise the orders of the Income-tax Officer as it was considered erroneous. The Commissioner dropped the proceedings initially but later issued a fresh notice to revise the order. The Commissioner eventually canceled the order and directed fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. The assessee appealed against the original order, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the appeal, directing the Income-tax Officer to pass a fresh order after following the correct procedure.

2. The Commissioner's order was challenged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, where the Judicial Member canceled the assessment order due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the Accountant Member did not agree with this reasoning. The issue of limitation was raised, with the Judicial Member refraining from dealing with it, and the Accountant Member stating that the question of limitation should be decided by the Tribunal. Due to the difference of opinion, the case was referred to the President of the Appellate Tribunal under section 255(4) for further action.

3. The President referred the case to the Vice-President, who opined that the subsequent assessment order was barred by limitation. The Tribunal then referred several questions to the High Court regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's decisions. Upon consideration, the High Court found that there was no majority decision on the issue of limitation, as the Judicial Member refrained from dealing with it, and the Accountant Member believed it should be decided by the Tribunal. Since there was no majority opinion, the High Court ordered the case to go back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, returning the referred questions unanswered and without any order as to costs.

---