TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner is an assessee on the files of the first respondent. Assessment was completed in respect of the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01, which however was sought to be re-opened by the assessing authority for the reasons recorded, stated as identical for all the years as Borne by Exts. P1 end P2 produced in respect of the assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99. The original assessment for the year 1996-97 was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and for the subsequent years, the assessment was completed by way of summary assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Re-opening of the assessments in respect of the above different years was subjected to challenge by filing appeals before the second respondent, wherein Ext.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1996-97 and 1997-98. After referring to the facts and figures in respect of the different assessment years and also taking note of the specific direction contained in the remand order passed by the Tribunal vide Ext. P3, it was held by the Commissioner that initiation of the proceedings under Section 148 for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 was not valid and accordingly, the appeals preferred by the petitioner were allowed. 4. Met with the situation, the Revenue preferred appeals (Exts.P5 to P7) before the second respondent. After hearing the matter, the Second respondent passed Ext. P9 order remanding the matter to the Commissioner for considering the case on merits, after arriving at a finding that there were valid reasons for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ursued by the Department as well as the second respondent/Tribunal, contending that there was no mistake to be rectified invoking the power under Section 254 (2) of the Income-tax Act and that no interference is warranted in the Writ Petition. It is further stated that, as observed by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal in Ext.P9, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) was not available when Ext. P3 order was passed by the Tribunal earlier or when Ext. P4 order was passed by the appellate authority pursuant to the remand and it was in the said circumstance, that the matter was considered afresh in the appeals preferred by the Revenue passing Exts.P9/P10 orders. It is also contended i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, whether there is mistake apparent on the face of the records, so as to have invoked the power of rectification under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, it remains a fact that the Tribunal considered the matter/reasons for reopening the assessment and held in respect of the assessment order for 1996-97 and 1997-98 that the materials were not sufficient so as to have pursued such an exercise and accordingly, the assessment was set aside and relief was extended to the petitioner. But in respect of the subsequent years, it was observed in para 19 of Ext. P3, that there was no material before the Tribunal to have analysed the factual position in respect of the said assessment years ; more so since the appellate authority had relied on the previ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Apex Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), as such, is not applicable to the case in hand, a proper reasoning has been given sustaining the reopening of the assessment, concurring with the directions given in Ext. P9 and remanding the matter to be considered on merits. 9. In short, when Ext. P3 order was passed by the Tribunal, the remand in respect of the assessment years/orders for 1998-99 to 2000-01 was for 'want of necessary materials', but for which, the Tribunal would have passed similar orders as in the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. This being the position, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has taken a 'U' turn, showing some or other inconsistency with regard to the earlier order (Ext.P3), while....