1987 (7) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

High Court clarifies limits on assessment orders under Income-tax Act, upholds authority of original assessment.

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited - [1988] 170 ITR 449, 65 CTR 78, 34 TAXMANN 153 Issues:1. Validity of a fresh assessment order passed by the assessing officer after the original assessment order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Legality of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) quashing the assessment framed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 143(3)/263.3. Interpretation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act regarding the permissibility of multiple assessment orders against the same assessee for a given year.Detailed Analysis:1. The Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the original assessment order of M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. for the assessment year 1976-77 under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. Subsequently, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision and reinstated the original assessment order. Despite this, the assessing officer issued a fresh assessment order in March 1984 based on the Commissioner's directions, which was challenged by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the fresh assessment order was invalid since the basis for it, the order under section 263, had been quashed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. The High Court noted that only one assessment order is permissible under the Act for a given year against an assessee, and the assessing officer lacked the authority to issue a fresh assessment order after the Commissioner's order was set aside unless the Tribunal vacated or suspended its operation.2. The Revenue sought a reference under section 256(1) of the Act, which was not granted. The High Court observed that the Tribunal did not err in dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the fresh assessment order. The Tribunal correctly noted that the order under section 263 did not exist when the fresh assessment order was passed, rendering it unauthorized. The High Court emphasized that the assessing officer could only modify or interfere with an assessment order in accordance with the law and the Act's provisions. Since the particulars of the pending reference were not provided by the Department, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision.3. The High Court reiterated that the Act does not allow for multiple assessment orders against the same assessee for a given year. Once an assessment is made, any modifications or interference must comply with the law and procedures outlined in the Act. In this case, since the order under section 263 was set aside on appeal, the assessing officer lacked the competence to issue a fresh assessment order based on that order. The High Court rejected the Revenue's application, stating that no question of law was raised. Since no representation was made by the assessee, no order as to costs was issued.