TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case are as under. The petitioner is engaged in the construction work. For the assessment year 1991-92, it had filed its return. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143 and ordered the refund under section 143(1)(a)(ii). Thereafter the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 143(2). The assessee raised the contention that once an assessment is framed and refund is ordered, then no notice could be issued under section 143(2). That contention was repelled by the Assessing Officer. The matter was taken in the appeal by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who too maintained the order of the Assessing Officer. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t under section 143(3). Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but in vain. It is also pertinent to point out that when the appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Tribunal in another matter of Agrawal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd. v. CIT took a contrary view. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner, preferred to follow the view taken by the Tribunal in Agrawal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd. instead of the earlier view of the Tribunal which was taken in the earlier appeal preferred by the present petitioner. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rehousing and Leasing Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 235. Question No. 2 which was framed in Agrawal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd. was as under: "(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the appeal on the preliminary issue regarding binding nature of orders of the Tribunal on lower authorities and instead dismissing the appeal on the basis of the grounds which were raised 'without prejudice' to the grounds regarding preliminary issue?" That question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It was further directed that the matter would go back to the Tribunal for doing the needful in the light of the observations made by this court. Learned counsel for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndents on December 3, 1997, on the ground that the Tribunal has committed a grave and serious miscarriage of justice. The writ petition was admitted by this court on March 5, 1998, by a bi-party order. The objection which has been raised by Shri Jain was very much available to the respondents when the matter was admitted for final hearing. From the order-sheet it appears that no such objection was ever raised at the time of admission. Now, the respondents cannot be permitted to turn around and submit that the petition should be dismissed in limine. The petitioner cannot be now relegated to the alternative remedy. In this connection, it would be profitable to refer the decision in Standard Flour and Oil Mills v. State of M.P. [1995] 28 VKN 4....