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 a finding recorded in appellate proceedings relating to one assessment year could justify reassessment for a different assessment year by invoking the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The reassessment notice for the earlier year had been issued after the normal limitation period had expired. The governing principle is that the appellate authority's jurisdiction is confined to the assessment year under appeal, and the second proviso to section 34(3) removes only the bar of limitation; it does not enlarge the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction. A "finding" within that proviso must be one that is necessary for the disposal of the appeal concerning the year in question. An incidental observation that income may belong to another year is not such a finding, because it is not essential to the decision of the appeal for the relevant year.
Conclusion: The reassessment for the different assessment year could not be sustained under the second proviso to section 34(3), and the answer returned by the High Court was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the question referred was answered against the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: A finding or direction in appellate proceedings can avoid the limitation bar only if it is necessary for the disposal of the assessment year under appeal; it cannot authorise reassessment for another year.