Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order could be sustained when the authorisations for audit and assessment were issued separately and simultaneously, and whether the assessment required interference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Analysis: The assessment was made by the officer on the basis of authorisations issued on the same day for audit and for assessment. The legal position recognised in the earlier Division Bench decisions was that an assessment by an officer must follow the audit process and, where shortcomings are noticed, a further authorisation may be issued for assessment by the competent territorial officer. On that basis, simultaneous or antecedent authorisations for audit and assessment were held to be impermissible, since the assessment power had to arise only after the audit outcome and not as an unfettered initial delegation.
Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the territorial assessing officer for fresh orders after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned assessment could not stand, and fresh adjudication was directed before the competent officer.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment based on simultaneous audit and assessment authorisations, without the assessment authorisation arising after the audit outcome, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.