Assessment jurisdiction cannot extend to a final issue outside the remand order, making the addition unsustainable.

Where an assessment year is not covered by an earlier remand or set-aside order, the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to re-adjudicate an issue that has already attained finality in the assessee's own case. Here, the Tribunal noted that assessment year 2006-07 was not included in the consolidated order relied upon by the Assessing Officer, so the proposed addition for sale of sugar at concessional rate lacked jurisdictional basis. The addition was therefore unsustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make an addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate when the issue had attained finality in the assessee's own case.

Analysis: The assessment order proceeded on the assumption that a consolidated order of the Tribunal had set aside the issue for de novo adjudication. On examination of that consolidated order, the assessment year 2006-07 did not figure among the matters covered by it. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction for assessment year 2006-07. Since the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate had already attained finality in the assessee's own case, the addition could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The addition relating to sale of sugar at concessional rate was unsustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's position on the disputed issue was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment year is not covered by an earlier remand or set-aside order, the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to re-adjudicate an issue that has already attained finality in the assessee's own case.

---