C Form genuineness and remand reassessment: proper verification required before denying concessional tax treatment

Fresh reassessments ordered after remand were treated as outside the ordinary limitation governing original reassessments, and no unreasonable delay in completing them was found. Concessional tax treatment based on disputed C Forms could not be rejected without proper enquiry and verification, because the finding that the forms were bogus lacked convincing material and no effective confirmation was made with the issuing State authorities. The rejection was set aside, and fresh adjudication by the Assessing Authority was directed on proper verification of the declarations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fresh assessments made after remand were barred by limitation or by the requirement of completion within a reasonable time; (ii) Whether the rejection of concessional tax treatment based on disputed C Forms could stand without proper enquiry and verification, and whether the matter required remand to the original authority.

Issue (i): Whether the fresh assessments made after remand were barred by limitation or by the requirement of completion within a reasonable time.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings arose after an order under the revisional power directing fresh enquiry. In such a situation, the time limit under the general reassessment provision was held not to control the fresh assessment in the same manner as an ordinary original assessment. The record also disclosed no undue delay in completing the reassessments after the matter was sent back. The plea based on unreasonable delay was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The limitation and reasonable-time challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of concessional tax treatment based on disputed C Forms could stand without proper enquiry and verification, and whether the matter required remand to the original authority.

Analysis: The finding that the C Forms were bogus was not supported by convincing material. No effective verification was made with the issuing State authorities, and the reassessment was sustained without adequate enquiry into genuineness. The revisional order had only directed a further enquiry, and the assessment could not be sustained without the authority being satisfied on the basis of proper material. The Tribunal's course of remitting the matter to the first appellate authority was found unnecessary, and a fresh decision by the Assessing Authority itself was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The rejection of concessional treatment was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Authority.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded in part, with the impugned assessments set aside and the dispute sent back for fresh decision after due verification of the C Forms.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment turns on the genuineness of statutory declarations, the finding must rest on proper enquiry and convincing material, and a fresh assessment made after a remand order is not automatically barred by the ordinary limitation applicable to original assessments.

---