Assessment Order Set Aside for Lack of Opportunity to be Heard

The Tribunal set aside the assessment order due to procedural errors, specifically the absence of an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The provision requiring approval from the Dy. CIT under section 144B was no longer in force, rendering the assessment null. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee if the Dy. CIT's directions are prejudicial. The assessment was ordered to be re-framed after ensuring the necessary opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order validity based on approval process from Dy. CIT under section 144B.
2. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer and opportunity of hearing for the assessee.
3. Authority of Board's instructions over statutory provisions.
4. Power of Board under section 119 of the Income-tax Act to issue instructions.
5. Opportunity of hearing for the assessee in case of approval by Dy. CIT.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to assessment order validity based on approval process from Dy. CIT under section 144B
The appeal raised the question of the validity of the assessment order due to the approval process from the Dy. CIT under section 144B, which was deleted from the Act in 1984. The assessee argued that the provision was no longer in force, rendering the assessment order a nullity. The contention was supported by case laws emphasizing that the Assessing Officer should act within the powers vested in him under the law. However, the revenue argued that the Board's instructions empowered the Assessing Officer to seek approval, and the first appellate authority rightly set aside the assessment for not providing an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal found that the provision was not in force when the assessment was framed, and the absence of opportunity of hearing was a procedural mistake. The order was set aside for re-assessment after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer and opportunity of hearing for the assessee
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in framing the assessment after obtaining approval from the Dy. CIT, arguing that the provision under which approval was sought was no longer valid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was represented during the assessment process and that the Assessing Officer acted based on the prevailing procedure. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer should afford an opportunity of hearing if the Dy. CIT's directions are prejudicial to the assessee's interest, as per section 144A of the Act. The first appellate authority's decision to set aside the assessment for providing an opportunity of hearing was upheld.

Issue 3: Authority of Board's instructions over statutory provisions
The appeal raised the issue of whether the Board's instructions could override statutory provisions, specifically regarding the approval process by the Dy. CIT. The Tribunal acknowledged the power of the Board under section 119 of the Income-tax Act to issue instructions for proper administration. However, it emphasized that if the Dy. CIT's directions adversely affected the assessee, an opportunity of hearing must be provided before finalizing the assessment.

Issue 4: Power of Board under section 119 of the Income-tax Act to issue instructions
The revenue argued that the Board's instructions empowered the Assessing Officer to seek approval from the Dy. CIT, and the first appellate authority's decision to set aside the assessment for providing an opportunity of hearing was justified. The Tribunal agreed that the Board could issue instructions for proper administration, but if the Dy. CIT's directions were detrimental to the assessee, an opportunity of hearing was necessary before finalizing the assessment.

Issue 5: Opportunity of hearing for the assessee in case of approval by Dy. CIT
The Tribunal analyzed the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee if the Dy. CIT's directions were prejudicial, as mandated by section 144A of the Act. It was noted that the nature of the directions given by the Dy. CIT was unclear from the record, and the first appellate authority rightly set aside the assessment for not affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to reframe the assessment after providing the necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

---