Appellate jurisdiction depends on a subsisting assessment order; once quashed, recomputation directions cannot survive.

Appellate and enhancement powers under sections 250 and 251 of the Income-tax Act operate only against a subsisting, enforceable order. Where the Assessing Officer's order under section 201(1)/201(1A) had already been quashed by the High Court and that judgment had attained finality, the underlying demand ceased to exist and became non est. In that situation, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to direct recomputation of tax under section 194C, as there was no live assessment or demand order capable of appellate scrutiny. The appeal was therefore infructuous and the impugned direction without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could direct recomputation of the demand under section 194C after the Assessing Officer's order under section 201(1)/201(1A) had already been quashed by the High Court, thereby rendering the appeal infructuous.

Analysis: The order passed by the Assessing Officer had been quashed by the jurisdictional High Court and that judgment had attained finality. Once the underlying order ceased to exist, it became a non est order. The appellate powers under sections 250 and 251 operate only where there is an enforceable order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of any subsisting assessment or demand order, there was no occasion to exercise appellate or enhancement jurisdiction and no basis to direct recomputation of tax at the rate applicable under section 194C.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned direction after the Assessing Officer's order had been quashed, and the assessee's appeal was required to succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate and enhancement powers under sections 250 and 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be exercised only against a subsisting and enforceable order; once the foundational order is quashed, the appellate proceeding becomes infructuous and any further direction on merits is without jurisdiction.

---