TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in jewellery were seized, as per annexure C-14. Some jewellery was also found in addition to the jewellery seized, which was however released. The list of the jewellery is as per annexure D-4. The assessee has made a surrender of income of Rs. 9,28,516 during the course of search. Some time after the search, the Gold Control authorities attached jewellery belonging to the assessee kept in a locker. This jewellery was valued at Rs. 13,57,900. Again that was revalued by the Gold Control authorities at Rs. 7,985 only. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 17,57,580, as one-third of the total seized cash, jewellery and gold and silver articles had been assessed in the hands of the assessee and his two brothers. Being aggrieved, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alued the gold ornaments and silver ornaments at Rs. 31,591, in addition to that he has also assessed the jewellery found in the locker which was in the name of Smt. Radha Devi, the mother of the assessee, and which was seized by the Customs authorities on March 24, 1988. That jewellery has not been considered in the original assessment dated March 27, 1991, nor any direction has been given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to value that jewellery or make the addition in the income of the assessee on account of that jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition made by the Income-tax Officer on the basi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come-tax Officer cannot go beyond the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated March 13, 1992. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of this court in the cases of Rambilas Chandram v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 344 and in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Co. [1995] 215 ITR 922. Before we go into the facts of this case, we would like to refer to the view taken by this court on a similar issue in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Co. [1995] 215 ITR 922. At page No. 928, this court has observed as under: "In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the scope of asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning the various factors involved in detail, giving an opportunity to the assessee before the additions are made, is an order of remand without any limitations or restrictions. In our opinion, as the case was sent back to the Income-tax Officer without any restrictions, the Income-tax Officer could exercise all powers which he could otherwise exercise at the time of making the original assessment. The Tribunal was right when it held that though no additions were made in tilli and alsi accounts while framing the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer could re-examine the matter after remand by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without any limitation and restriction." In the case in hand when the assessment order dated March 13, 1992....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer while making the fresh assessment has gone beyond the directions given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and had valued the jewellery which was seized by the Customs authority from the bank locker of Smt. Radha Devi, the mother of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the second round has confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer without realising the fact that the direction in the first round of proceeding was limited. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal after quoting the direction in para. 10 and para. 11, of its order has observed as under: "Since the directions read with the relevant observations were quite specific, it was not appropriate on the part of the Assessing ....