Court rules in favor of assessee, setting aside prior orders. Assessing authority's request deemed outside scope. Remitted for fresh order.

The court ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Tribunal and first appellate authority's orders. It held that the assessee had the right to withdraw the appeal under Section 55(5) of the Act, and the assessing authority's request to re-examine seized material was outside the scope of the law. Additionally, the court found that the direction for reassessment for A.Y. 2012-13 (Central) was beyond the appellate authority's jurisdiction. The matter was remitted for a fresh order respecting the assessee's withdrawal right and correct application of relevant statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Tribunal's order sustaining the remand of the matters for A.Y. 2012-13 (U.P.) despite the assessee's application for withdrawal.
2. Legality of the Tribunal's order sustaining the direction for a fresh assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 (Central), which was not under appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Tribunal's Order Sustaining the Remand for A.Y. 2012-13 (U.P.):

The assessee's business premises were surveyed on 21.01.2013, leading to the seizure of certain documents. The assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 (U.P.) was concluded with additions for undisclosed purchases and sales, resulting in a disputed tax amount of Rs. 4,89,675/-. The assessee challenged these additions in the first appeal. However, the assessee filed an application on 13.06.2017 to withdraw the appeal, which the first appellate authority did not address. Instead, a notice under Section 55(5)(2)(ii) of the Act was issued on 20.06.2017, requiring the assessee to show cause on underassessment points.

The first appellate authority issued another notice on 07.12.2017 under Section 55(5)(a)(ii) of the Act. The assessing authority responded, indicating that a final opinion on underassessment could only be formed after reconciling seized documents with the books of account. The first appellate authority decided on 14.12.2017 to remit the matter for fresh assessment, noting that the assessee had not provided a specific reply to the notice.

The Tribunal upheld this remand, reasoning that the assessee failed to respond to the enhancement notice and the assessing authority sought an opportunity to re-examine the seized material. The Tribunal distinguished the case from R.R. Brick Factory Vs. CST and Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, noting differences in the statutory provisions and factual circumstances.

The court, however, found that the assessee had a near-absolute right to withdraw the appeal under Section 55(5) of the Act, provided no request from the Commissioner was pending. The court held that the first appellate authority's notices were not valid requests from the Commissioner and that the assessing authority's request to re-examine the seized material fell outside the scope of the proviso to Section 55(5). Thus, the appellate authority should have allowed the withdrawal application and dismissed the appeal with observations, without remanding the matter for fresh assessment.

2. Legality of the Tribunal's Order Sustaining the Direction for Fresh Assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 (Central):

The first appellate authority noted an undisclosed Central sale based on seized documents and directed reassessment under Section 29(9) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld this direction, referring to the same seized documents and Section 29(9).

The court found that the first appellate authority had no jurisdiction to direct reassessment for A.Y. 2012-13 (Central) as it was not under appeal. The court emphasized that Section 29(9) only provides for limitation and does not grant the appellate authority powers to pass orders beyond the scope of the appeal before it. The court concluded that the direction for reassessment of A.Y. 2012-13 (Central) was beyond jurisdiction and thus invalid.

Conclusion:

The court answered both questions in favor of the assessee, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority. The matter was remitted to the first appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, respecting the assessee's right to withdraw the appeal. The revision was allowed, emphasizing the correct interpretation and application of Section 55(5) and Section 29(9) of the U.P. VAT Act.

---