TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 01.12.1989. While the said Appeal was pending, the reassessment was completed and an order was passed on 31.03.1992. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 28.04.1992. On 21.09.1992, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order in the Appeal filed against the order of reopening of the assessment stating that when fresh assessment was made, the assessee was not given the copies of the statement recorded behind the back of the assessee and further directed to give opportunity of hearing. 2.2.Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by order dated 16.02.1993, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer directing the Officer to record the statements from V.Subramaniam and V.K.Berlia, the Author of the Agreement dated 04.12.1985. Pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer recorded the statement of V.Subramaniam on 10.09.1993. However, the Assessing Officer has not recorded the statement of V.K.Berlia. On 30.07.2003, the Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent after following the directions given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4.Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.V.Sanjeevi for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent. 5.Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2006 without following the specific directions given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent had passed the impugned order by merely following the earlier orders dated 31.03.1992 and 30.07.2003, which were set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration and to redo the assessment by following the directions given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5.1.In support of his contentions, the learned s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43 [Union of India and others Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.] wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "... 6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion,by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them,one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view,rightly criticised this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate heirarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Collector refusing to follow the order of the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even where he may have some reservations on its correctness. He has to follow the order of the higher appellate authority. This may instantly cause some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is also in the hands of the same officer. He has only to bring the matter to the notice of the Board or the Collector so as to enable appropriate proceedings being taken under Section 35-E (1) or (2) to keep the interests of the department alive. If the officer's view is the correct one, it will no doubt be finally upheld and the Revenue will get the duty, though after some delay which such procedure would entail." (iii)(2008) 3 MLJ 852 [N.Sivakumar Vs. K.Vembu, President, Valrakurich Village, Sendurai Taluk and others] wherein this Court held as follows: "... 8.In the first place, if there is a violation of principles of natural justice, it is not necessary in all cases to avail of the appeal remedy and the aggrieved person can straightaway approach this Court under Article 226. Further, in this case, there is one more reason why the appeal remedy will b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned D.R. to decide the appeal on merit after furnishing the copies of the seized material to the assessee or call for a remand report would not meet the ends of justice in this case. Normally, this Tribunal would call for remand report when a particular issue was not considered by the lower authority or a particular material was not considered by the lower authority. In this case, the entire material seized from M/s.Wavin India Ltd. was not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, we do not know what would be the objection of the assessee after seeing the copies of the material that was seized from M/s.Wavin India Ltd. After seeing the material seized from M/s.Wavin India Ltd., the assessee may put forward their objection to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer may or may not accept the objection. But, when the Assessing Officer does not accept the objection of the assessee, In our view, a detailed enquiry has to be made on the basis of the objection that may be raised. Such a kind of enquiry would be effectively made at the Assessing Officer level since examination and cross examination of witness may also be required. This Tribunal being the final fact finding authority, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the directions given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and also has not furnished the copies of the documents to the petitioner. When the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.1992 and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XII dated 30.07.2003 were set aside in the impugned order dated 30.03.2006, the respondent had, in several places, approved the orders dated 31.03.1992 and 30.07.2003. The finding given by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in view of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 11.The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 443 [Union of India and others Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.] and (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 499 [State of H.P. and others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., and another] squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12.The respondent has to follow the order passed by the higher Appellate Authority. When the Appellate Authority has given some directions to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer must follow the directions without taking any divergent view. When the orders passed by the Assessi....