TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ictional High Court rendered in a judgment subsequent to the delivery of the order of the Tribunal ? 2. Whether the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the judgment was not law in existence forever within the jurisdiction of the High Court to be applied by the authorities subordinate as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 ? 3. Whether the provisions of section 150(1) of the Act were applicable to the case of the appellant and the limitation in reopening of the assessment under section 147 read with section 149 stood lifted and whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the validity of the reopening under section 147 of the Act in the case of the appellant ? 4. If the answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the assessing authority without restoring to the case to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the merits of the additions made in the reassessment especially when the Commissioner (Appeals) did not give a finding in this regard while the appeal was originally disposed of ? 5. Whether in the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the firm. The activity of the firm was to purchase immovable property by name "Ranga Bhavan", located in Mangalore, to develop and sell the said property. This activity constituted business activity. 10. The firm in terms of its partnership deed dated November 29, 1981, had purchased property on July 21, 1982 for a consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs. Subsequently, it appears that the firm was reconstituted on February 2, 1985, to admit one more partner in the name of M/s. Hotel Poonja Inter-national Private Limited. It is incidental to state the shareholders of this company were also the partners of M/s. Poonja Arcade. 11. It appears M/s. Poonja Arcade which was reconstituted on February 2, 1985, was dissolved on February 28, 1985, and in the process of dissolution, the assets of the firm, namely, Ranga Bhavan were allotted to the share of incumbent partner M/s. Hotel Poonja International Private Limited and the erstwhile six partners shared Rs. 30 lakhs amount, which had been brought in by M/s. Hotel Poonja International Private Limited, in their respective profit sharing ratios in the profit of the firm, in terms of partnership deed of the firm. 12. The assessment order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sections 148 and 150(1) of the Act, the appellant-firm responded to the notice by filing the reply dated November 23, 1998, and questioned the very jurisdiction for reopening of the assessment of the firm on the basis of assessment of the firm and for issuing notice under section 148 read with section 150(1) of the Act. 18. The assessee contended that the notice was bad in law ; that the assessing authority had not understood the scope and true contents of the order of the Tribunal passed in five appeals of the individual partners of the firm ; that the Tribunal having allowed the appeals and having set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, there was nothing more to be considered by the assessing authority, therefore, there is no need to take further action in the matter. 19. The assessing authority nevertheless having proceeded to pass the assessment order dated March 30, 2001 (copy produced at annexure C) determining the tax liability of the firm to be in a sum of Rs. 7,94,250 on the premise that business income of the firm was Rs. 30 lakhs, which also happened to be total income and attributed to the transfer of stock-in-trade of the firm, namely, Ranga Bhavan. the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submission is that such an order is passed to reassess the concluded assessment of the firm and that the order of the Tribunal is not a direct result of any appeal or revision proceeding, which is pursued either by the firm or in the name of the firm and in this view of the matter, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the assessing authority had assumed jurisdiction very correctly to pass an order in terms of section 150 of the Act. 24. That apart, Sri Dinesh, learned counsel for the assessee would draw our attention to Explanation 3 to section 153(3) of the Act to submit that even if the said provision permits reassessment of a concluded assessment of any other person, as a consequence of an appeal/order passed in an appeal or revision by some other person and when third persons assessment orders are sought to be reviewed or reassessed as a consequence of appeal or revisional order in terms of the Explanation, such person should necessarily be accorded an opportunity. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal having not given such an opportunity, the order of the Tribunal suffers from errors and it is in contravention of Explanation 3 to sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing authority to pass an order in terms of section 150(1) and, secondly, the assessing authority also has committed an error in issuing notice, invoking the provisions of section 148 of the Act when without any dispute, the period of limitation in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149 of the Act was over, i.e., long after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, namely, 1985-86. The provisions of section 149(1) of the Act, which were prevalent at the relevant period reads as under : "149. Time limit for notice.-(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued, (a) in cases falling under clause (a) of section 147- (i) for the relevant assessment year, if eight years have elapsed from the end of that year, unless the case falls under sub-clause (ii) : (ii) for the relevant assessment year, where eight years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of that year, unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees fifty thousand or more for that year ; (b) in cases falling under clause (b) of section 147, at any time after the expiry of four years fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve, particularly holding that the Tribunal was very correct in affirming the view taken by the Commissioner on ascertainment of profit and income of the firm, based on the valuation method adopted by the Commissioner. These questions also are to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, in the affirmative, particularly question No. 4 as framed does not arise in its form, as this is not a question of any addition to the income already determined, but only re-determination of income in the hands of the firm for the year in question. Question No. 5 consequently answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, in the affirmative. 32. Sri Dinesh learned counsel for the assessee in support of the submission that the Tribunal has committed an error in so far as it relates to answers found in the order relating to questions Nos. 1 and 2, has drawn our attention to the judgment of this court dated August 13, 2008 rendered in I. T.A. No. 91 of 2004, in the case of CIT v. Munibyrappa. 33. Based on this judgment, the submission is that this court has clarified the legal position in so far as the statutory provisions of section 150(1) of the Act is concerne....