Assessment officer cannot refuse relief granted by Tribunal citing need for revised returns under Section 254

The Delhi HC allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders where the AO refused to accept revised returns enhancing declared income based on liaison office activities and sales to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The AO rejected declarations citing that granting relief would reduce taxable income below the threshold declared in original returns. The HC held that while assessees are ordinarily bound by their returns, when the Tribunal admits a question and accords relief, this cannot be denied or made subject to return revision requirements. Relying on Wipro Finance Ltd. SC judgment, the court ruled that insistence on return revision as precondition fails to consider plenary powers conferred on Tribunal under Section 254. The HC quashed assessment orders dated 30 November 2021 and directed AO to consider additional grounds afresh, also quashing consequential demand and penalty notices.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Assessing Officer's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (1992).
3. Legality of the final assessment order dated 30 November 2021.
4. Consideration of additional grounds raised by the petitioner.
5. Powers of the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer in light of revised returns and additional claims.
6. Implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
7. Impact of the Tribunal's directions on the Assessing Officer's assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessing Officer's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989:
The Assessing Officer (AO) relied on CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989, which stated that "assessed income shall not be less than returned income." The AO used this circular to reject the petitioner's additional claims that would reduce the assessed income below the returned income. The court noted that this circular was based on the provisions of Section 143 as they stood in 1989, which have since been amended. The amendments to Section 143(3) now allow for the possibility of refunds upon assessment, rendering the circular outdated and inapplicable to the current statutory framework.

2. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (1992):
The AO also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (1992), which held that an assessee cannot claim re-computation of income or redo an assessment to allow a claim that was not initially made. The court found that this reliance was misplaced, as the Sun Engineering judgment pertains to Section 147, which deals with reassessment, and not to the scenario where the Tribunal has directed a fresh examination of claims.

3. Legality of the final assessment order dated 30 November 2021:
The final assessment order dated 30 November 2021, which followed the draft assessment order, was challenged by the petitioner. The court noted that this order was passed despite interim stay orders and was accompanied by demand and penalty notices. The court found that the final assessment order and the accompanying notices were not in compliance with the Tribunal's directions and thus quashed them.

4. Consideration of additional grounds raised by the petitioner:
The petitioner raised several additional grounds before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which were dismissed. These grounds included errors in taxing purchases while taxing sales, exclusion of turnover from export of goods, and the status of the Indian subsidiary as a Permanent Establishment (PE). The Tribunal had directed the AO to re-examine these grounds, but the AO dismissed them citing the CBDT Circular. The court held that the AO should have considered these additional grounds as per the Tribunal's directions.

5. Powers of the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer in light of revised returns and additional claims:
The court emphasized the plenary powers of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, which allow it to entertain new grounds and claims even if they were not part of the original return. The court cited several precedents, including National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, to support this position. The court clarified that the Tribunal's directions must be followed by the AO, and the AO cannot disregard these directions by citing procedural limitations such as the need for a revised return.

6. Implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., which held that an AO cannot entertain a claim for deduction without a revised return, but this limitation does not apply to the Tribunal. The court noted that the Tribunal has the authority to admit new claims and direct the AO to re-examine them, even if these claims were not part of the original return.

7. Impact of the Tribunal's directions on the Assessing Officer's assessment:
The court concluded that the AO was bound to follow the Tribunal's directions to re-examine the additional grounds raised by the petitioner. The AO's reliance on the outdated CBDT Circular and the Supreme Court's judgment in Sun Engineering was incorrect. The court quashed the final assessment order dated 30 November 2021 and the accompanying demand and penalty notices, directing the AO to pass fresh orders in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the final assessment orders dated 30 November 2021 and the consequential demand and penalty notices. The AO was directed to re-examine the additional grounds raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with the Tribunal's directions. The court emphasized the plenary powers of the Tribunal and clarified that the AO must comply with the Tribunal's directions, irrespective of procedural limitations.

---