TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Orders Fresh Disposal, Emphasizes Notice Verification & Fresh Evidence</h1> <h3>GOURI KANTA KALITA. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.</h3> GOURI KANTA KALITA. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER. - TTJ 034, 593, Issues Involved:1. Justification of the Dy. CIT (A)'s actions and adherence to Tribunal's directions.2. Validity of re-assessment proceedings under section 147 and service of notice under section 148.3. Admission of fresh evidence and facts by the Dy. CIT (A).4. Compliance with Tribunal's earlier order and legal principles.5. Remand procedure and the role of the assessing officer.Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of the Dy. CIT (A)'s Actions and Adherence to Tribunal's Directions:The Tribunal noted that the Dy. CIT (A) failed to properly appreciate or follow the clear directions of the Tribunal. The Dy. CIT (A) did not admit fresh evidence or facts as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that both sides should be allowed to present fresh facts and materials for proper disposal of the matter.2. Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings under Section 147 and Service of Notice under Section 148:The Tribunal reiterated that service of notice under section 148 is a necessary condition before legal proceedings for re-assessment can commence. The Tribunal found that the Dy. CIT (A) erroneously concluded that the assessee did not comply with the notice under section 148 without verifying whether the notice was duly served. The Tribunal emphasized that the service of notice is essential and must be verified according to law.3. Admission of Fresh Evidence and Facts by the Dy. CIT (A):The Tribunal criticized the Dy. CIT (A) for not permitting the assessee to present fresh facts or evidence at the appellate stage. The Tribunal highlighted that the earlier order allowed both sides to place fresh facts and materials before the Dy. CIT (A). The Tribunal found that the Dy. CIT (A) failed to exercise judicial discretion judiciously and according to rule.4. Compliance with Tribunal's Earlier Order and Legal Principles:The Tribunal emphasized that the Dy. CIT (A) must comply with the Tribunal's directions, which are binding and have the same effect as High Court orders. The Tribunal noted that the Dy. CIT (A) disregarded the Tribunal's directions, which could lead to contempt of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal cited various legal precedents to support the binding nature of its directions and the necessity for lower authorities to follow them.5. Remand Procedure and the Role of the Assessing Officer:The Tribunal decided to call for a remand report from the assessing officer regarding the service of notice under section 148. The assessing officer was instructed to verify the records and come to a definite conclusion. The Tribunal aimed to expedite the process and reduce unnecessary litigation by involving the assessing officer and ensuring compliance with legal procedures.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the Dy. CIT (A)'s order and directed a fresh disposal of the matter, emphasizing the necessity of verifying the service of notice under section 148 and allowing both sides to present fresh evidence. The Tribunal called for a remand report from the assessing officer to ensure proper disposal of justice and adherence to legal principles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 