TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a provisional assessment under Rule 9B could be finalised in instalments or only by a single final order covering all issues; (ii) whether any demand raised after such finalisation was governed by limitation under Section 11A.
Issue (i): whether a provisional assessment under Rule 9B could be finalised in instalments or only by a single final order covering all issues.
Analysis: Rule 9B(5) was read as providing a complete mechanism for finalisation of provisional assessment, with no express authority for selective or piecemeal finalisation on isolated issues. The absence of any prescribed time limit for finalisation was treated as indicating that the proper officer should wait until all matters forming the basis of provisional assessment were sufficiently resolved and then pass one final speaking order. Once an assessment is provisional, it operates as such on all counts, and its finalisation must also be comprehensive.
Conclusion: Piecemeal finalisation was not permissible, and the impugned remand on this aspect was upheld against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): whether any demand raised after such finalisation was governed by limitation under Section 11A.
Analysis: After finalisation of a provisional assessment, any further demand could be sustained only in accordance with the limitation regime under Section 11A. On the record before it, the factual position as to whether the assessments had already been finalised in the manner asserted was not clear, so the matter was remitted for reconsideration with the limitation question to be examined on that basis.
Conclusion: The demand, if any, after finalisation was held to be subject to Section 11A, and the remand on this question was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the remand order was maintained because provisional assessment could not be finalised piecemeal and any post-finalisation demand had to comply with the statutory limitation framework.
Ratio Decidendi: A provisional assessment under Rule 9B must be finalised by one comprehensive final order, and once such finalisation occurs, any further demand is subject to the limitation provisions governing post-finalisation recovery.
TaxTMI 
