1997 (11) TMI 129 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds ACIT's assessment orders under section 124(2), dismisses assessee's claims

Amulya General Trading & Agencies Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Amulya General Trading & Agencies Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax - ITD 065, 329, TTJ 061, 446, Issues Involved:1. Legality and jurisdiction of the CIT(Appeals)'s order.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (ACIT, New Delhi) versus ACIT, Ghaziabad.3. Validity of the jurisdictional order under section 124(2).4. Validity of notices under sections 148 and 142(1).5. Validity of the second assessment order dated 8-3-1996.6. Default by the assessee and framing of assessments under section 144.7. Directions regarding the verification of the loss of Rs. 86,300.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the CIT(Appeals)'s Order:The Tribunal examined the legality of the CIT(Appeals)'s order dated 30-7-1996. The primary contention was whether the CIT(Appeals) had the authority to uphold the assessment orders passed by the ACIT, New Delhi. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(Appeals)'s order was not unauthorized, illegal, or erroneous. The Tribunal found that the ACIT, New Delhi, had the requisite jurisdiction to complete the assessments for the relevant years. Consequently, grounds 1 and 2 were rejected.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (ACIT, New Delhi) versus ACIT, Ghaziabad:The Tribunal addressed the jurisdictional dispute, determining whether the assessee's business operations fell under the jurisdiction of the ACIT, New Delhi, or ACIT, Ghaziabad. The Tribunal found that the assessee had its head office and carried out business activities in New Delhi, as evidenced by various documents and submissions. Therefore, the ACIT, New Delhi, was deemed to have the proper jurisdiction to complete the assessments. The Tribunal also noted that the ACIT, Ghaziabad, lacked inherent jurisdiction to assess the assessee's income. Consequently, grounds 3 to 5 were rejected.3. Validity of the Jurisdictional Order under Section 124(2):The Tribunal examined the validity of the jurisdictional order dated 14-2-1996 passed by the CCIT, New Delhi, which assigned jurisdiction to the ACIT, New Delhi. The Tribunal concluded that the order was valid and did not require a specific consent order from the CCIT, Kanpur. The Tribunal emphasized that the order acknowledged the existing jurisdiction of the ACIT, New Delhi, rather than creating new jurisdiction. The Tribunal also invoked the presumption under section 114E of the Evidence Act, assuming that the CCIT, Kanpur, had consented to the decision. Consequently, grounds 3 to 5 were rejected.4. Validity of Notices under Sections 148 and 142(1):The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices issued under sections 148 and 142(1). The Tribunal found that these notices were neither illegal, time-barred, nor without jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that the ACIT, New Delhi, had the requisite jurisdiction to issue these notices and complete the assessments. Consequently, ground 6 was rejected.5. Validity of the Second Assessment Order Dated 8-3-1996:The Tribunal addressed the contention that the assessment order dated 8-3-1996 constituted a second assessment order on the same income. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Ghaziabad, was invalid and did not operate as a bar to the valid assessment order dated 8-3-1996 passed by the ACIT, New Delhi. The Tribunal emphasized that the latter order was the only valid assessment order for the relevant years. Consequently, ground 7 was rejected.6. Default by the Assessee and Framing of Assessments under Section 144:The Tribunal examined whether there was any default on the part of the assessee that warranted framing assessments under section 144. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had duly considered the assessee's contentions and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessments in deserving cases. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(Appeals) had not confirmed the assessments under section 144 and had provided appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, ground 8 was rejected.7. Directions Regarding the Verification of the Loss of Rs. 86,300:The Tribunal addressed the direction given by the CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of the loss of Rs. 86,300 claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had appropriately directed the Assessing Officer to call for further details and verify the claim. Consequently, ground 9 was rejected.Conclusion:All grounds raised by the assessee were found against them, and all appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment orders passed by the ACIT, New Delhi, and confirmed the jurisdictional order under section 124(2). The Tribunal also validated the notices issued under sections 148 and 142(1) and confirmed the directions given by the CIT(Appeals) regarding the verification of the loss claimed by the assessee.