2020 (3) TMI 1378 - HC - Income Tax

High Court overturns tribunal's decision for exceeding remand scope, deems new issues impermissible. Emphasizes fresh material requirement.

The High Court set aside the tribunal's order for overstepping its remand scope by considering issues beyond the mandate. It deemed the addition made in ... Block assessment - Addition to the assessee on a “protective basis” - protective addition was made in connection with a block assessment order made in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (SWC) where these additions were made in a “substantive manner” - According to the tribunal, since this substantive addition had been set aside and remanded, the case of the assessee required a re-look - HELD THAT:- We find from the impugned order of the tribunal that it has not confined itself to this narrow issue but has made consideration of issues which were not remanded to it. We find also from the impugned order of the tribunal has not addressed these issues in the manner that they should have been dealt with in accordance with the earlier order of the tribunal For those reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the tribunal dated 31st March, 2005. As fifteen years have elapsed, we direct the tribunal to redetermine the appeal as expeditiously as possible by hearing the parties and by a reasoned order preferably within four months of communication of this order. Issues:1. Tribunal's consideration of issues beyond the remand scope.2. Addition made in reassessment on new issues.3. Change in findings from original assessment.4. Addition based on sources of deposit in bank accounts.5. Tribunal's failure to address issues in accordance with earlier order.Analysis:1. The High Court addressed the issue of the tribunal's overstepping by considering issues beyond the remand scope. The tribunal, in its order dated 31st March, 2005, ventured into matters not remanded to it, contrary to the limited scope of the remand. The High Court found this to be a departure from the tribunal's mandate and set aside the impugned order for this reason.2. Regarding the addition made in reassessment on new issues, the appellant contended that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) erred in making a new addition of Rs. 12,41,80,000, which was not part of the set-aside assessment by the ITAT in Appeal No. 17(SS)A No. 54/Cal/98 dated 8th October, 1999. The High Court noted this argument and emphasized that making new additions not subject to the set-aside assessment was impermissible under the law.3. The issue of changing findings from the original assessment was also examined. The appellant argued that the A.O. was wrong in changing the findings of the predecessor without fresh material or evidence, which is not permissible. The High Court concurred, stating that altering findings without valid grounds was against the legal principles, and any additions based on such changes needed to be deleted.4. Another point of contention was the addition made based on the sources of deposit in two bank accounts. The appellant highlighted that the sources were from SWC and its subsidiaries, a fact established in the original assessment. The High Court agreed that ignoring established findings without a basis was improper and mandated the deletion of such additions.5. Lastly, the High Court observed that the tribunal failed to address the issues in accordance with the earlier order of 8th October, 1999. As a result, the High Court set aside the tribunal's order dated 31st March, 2005, and directed the tribunal to redetermine the appeal promptly, preferably within four months of the communication of the High Court's order. This directive aimed to ensure a timely and proper resolution of the matter in line with the legal requirements.