TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (4) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....occasion, for both the years, and main point of appeal was that there was no justification for the ITO to initiate proceedings under s. 147 and the erred in upholding the action that the assessee was not served with notice under s. 148. The Tribunal found that this point regarding initiation under s. 147 arose from the order of the D.C.(A). The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee has submitted that notice under the above section has not been served on the assessee and, therefore, the authorities below had no jurisdiction to proceed with the re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal expressed the view that service of notice under s. 148 is a necessary condition before legal proceedings can be commenced for re-assessment. The Tribunal noted that service of notice on the assessee was essential and unless service was effected, it cannot be said that re-assessment should be treated to be in order, as held by the D.C.(A) on the ground that the assessee had not pressed this ground in the appeal or he has not taken leave to adduce the said additional ground. It was noticed that the assessee did take the ground before the D.C.(A). The Tribunal found that the then D.C.(A) had abruptly c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various allegations and assumptions on suspicion and without any basis. It is pointed out that as per the direction of the Tribunal, verification has to be made regarding service of notice under s. 148 and, in fact, the assessee before the present D.C.(A) argued that point and emphasised that notice was not served on the assessee and, therefore, the re-assessment proceedings were invalid. 9. We have heard both the sides at length on this point and we have gone through the orders of the authorities below for our consideration. It is seen that the Tribunal has observed in the earlier order that service of notice under s. 148 is an essential condition for commencement of proceedings for re-assessment. It was also observed in that order that unless a notice under s. 148 was served, it cannot be said that re-assessment proceedings should be treated to be in order as held by the then D.C. (A). It is seen that the D.C.(A), on the other hand, observed that the assessee did not comply with the notices under s. 148 for both the years, whereas the repeated contentions of the assessee before the first appellate authorities were that there was no service of notice under s. 148. In such a situa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s given a finding that the point raised by the assessee was a legal one and can be raised at any stage of the appellate proceedings. In fact specific provisions have been made in this regard, so that the appellate authorities can dealt with the matter for proper dispensing of justice. 11. After going through the consolidated order of the AAC for both the years, we cannot but come to an irresistible conclusion that the D.C.(A) though passed the order purported to be in pursuance with the direction of the Tribunal dt. 25th Oct., 1988 as noted in the impugned order, has in fact, cast to the wind all the directions, findings and other observations of the Tribunal given in the very case itself. 12. In the case of Shri Rajendra Mills Ltd. (1981) 28 STC 483 at page 484 (Mad), it was held that in the heirarchy of the authorities under that Act, the Tribunal is superior to the AAC/CIT(A) or the ITO, who is bound by the order of the Tribunal which will be as effective as the orders of the High Court so far as the binding character on him is concerned. It was also observed that as long as the order of the Tribunal is not set aside, the authorities below are bound to give effect to it and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature of the direction of the Tribunal, the D.C.(A) should have in good grace given effect to that direction without demur. It is difficult for us to believe that the D.C.(A) was not aware of those directions given by the Tribunal as, in fact, he himself had referred to that decision of the Tribunal in the preamble of this impugned order in which those very directions were incorporated. If any of the lower authorities viz., AAC/CIT (A) or ITO prefer to disregard or to ignore the basic directions of the appellate authorities, it would make the entire system of dispensing of justice unworkable. In fact, the very purpose of the appeal before the AAC and for that matter before the Tribunal and onwards would be frustrated if a particular authority chooses to follow his whims or bent of mind. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. RaoThakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234 (SC) in which on the facts of that case and in the context of the IT Act, 1922, it was observed that as the order of the Tribunal became final, the finding of the Tribunal even though by mistake that the officer could not initiate re-assessment proceedings in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rections given by the Tribunal though the impugned order was purported to be an order given effect to the order of the Tribunal. It has to be borne in mind that the order of the Tribunal dt. 25th Oct., 1988 is the source of the order on which the present D.C.(A) has assumed the jurisdiction for fresh disposal of the appeal as restored by the Tribunal. It is not open to the authorities below to pick up certain directions and to ignore other directions given by the same authority in the very same order. 18. In the present case, the assess had gone to the then AAC for relief and thereafter brought the appeal before the Tribunal who sent back the matter to the then D.C.(A) and the present D.C.(A) has dealt with the matter for the second time. This is the second time that the matter has been brought by the assessee before the Tribunal. From what has been stated above, the facts of the case warrant that the matter should be restored to the file of the D.C.(A) for fresh disposal. In other words, the assessee has been shunted from pillar to post in search for justice. In fact, litigations have been multiplied or caused to be multiplied unnecessarily though inadvertently by the D.C.(A). Ap....