Appeal Dismissed: Order under section 143(1) not appealable. Utilize alternative remedies.

The Tribunal confirmed the AAC's decision, ruling that an order under section 143(1) is not appealable. Emphasizing the appellant's failure to utilize alternative remedies, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating the appellant could have pursued rectification or other remedies instead of approaching the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Competency of appeal based on orders under section 143(1)
2. Validity of assessment orders under section 143(1)
3. Interpretation of provisions under section 246(1)(c)
4. Availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: Competency of appeal based on orders under section 143(1)
The appellant challenged the dismissal of the appeal by the AAC on grounds of incompetency due to the nature of the order passed under section 143(1). The appellant contended that the AAC erred in law by dismissing the appeals without deciding the legal grounds raised. The appellant sought to set aside the order of the AAC and annul the order of the ITO, arguing that the order under section 143(1) was appealable as it affected the assessment of the appellant.

Issue 2: Validity of assessment orders under section 143(1)
The core contention revolved around the validity of the assessment orders under section 143(1) for the assessment years in question. The appellant argued that the ITO had exceeded his powers under section 143(1) by not computing the tax and instead adopting figures from the assessment orders of the firm. The appellant claimed that the ITO's actions were outside the scope of section 143(1) and resulted in an increase in the assessed income, rendering the order invalid. The appellant emphasized that the ITO should have accepted the returned figures before making any adjustments.

Issue 3: Interpretation of provisions under section 246(1)(c)
The appellant raised the issue of interpretation of section 246(1)(c) concerning the denial of liability to be assessed under the Act. The appellant argued that the denial mentioned in the provision was not limited to complete denial but also encompassed partial denial, as in the appellant's case where the tax calculated on the assessed income exceeded the tax paid by the appellant. The appellant sought to bring the case under section 246(1)(c) to challenge the assessment.

Issue 4: Availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act
The discussion also focused on the availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act, such as sections 154, 264, and 143(2)(a). The learned D.R. supported the orders of the AAC, emphasizing that the appellant had not availed of the alternative remedies provided under the Act. It was argued that the appellant could have sought recourse under these provisions instead of appealing against the order under section 143(1). The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision based on the scheme of section 143(1) and the absence of an appealable order under that section.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the AAC's decision, stating that an order passed under section 143(1) is not appealable. The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of section 143(1) and emphasized that the appellant had not availed of the remedies provided under the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, noting that the appellant could have pursued rectification or other remedies instead of approaching the Tribunal.

---