TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (5) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correct in law in holding that the disallowance of Rs. 59,117 and Rs. 11,594 on account of commission to selling agents could not be contested and considered on merits in the appeal filed against the relevant fresh assessment made after setting aside the original assessment ? " The necessary facts leading to the above question are that the assessee applicant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of heavy chemicals. The assessment year under consideration is 1972-73. On February 27, 1973, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment and disallowed sums of Rs. 59,117 and Rs. 11,594 on account of commission paid to the selling agents. Against that order, the assessee went in appeal which was decided by the Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fresh assessment, the income-tax authorities have acted illegally in not examining the claim of the assessee regarding payment to commission agents on the ground that, in the earlier order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the claim of the assessee was not accepted. According to learned counsel for the assessee, after remand, it was the duty of the Income-tax Officer to decide the claim of the assessee afresh and the Income-tax Officer could not refuse the claim of the appellant regarding disallowance of the payments to the commission agents on the ground that it had been decided at the earlier occasion. Our attention has been drawn to the rulings in CIT v. Seth Manicklal Fomra [1975] 99 ITR 470 (Mad), Ram Dayal Harbilas v. CST [197....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate Assistant. Commissioner, after giving his comments, remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in the light of the directions given by him in respect of each ground. It is in this context that in paragraph 11 of his order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner indicated that the assessment has to be reframed in the light of the observations made by him. In paragraph 12, he further observed that, during the fresh proceedings, the appellant will be free to agitate his other grievances and, accordingly, he set aside the assessment. It is apparent from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that he gave specific directions to the Income-tax Officer in respect of each contention that he had dealt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... read as a whole, it would be evident that the judges have indicated that the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 251(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are wider than the powers exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. In paragraph 17 (at page 91 of 44 STC) of the ruling, their Lordships have indicated as below: "...But then it is open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while setting aside the assessment, to direct the Income-tax Officer to consider only certain matters when making the assessment and, in that event, the Income-tax Officer cannot go behind the direction and enquire into other matters (Pulipati Subbarao and Co. v. AAC of I.T. [1959] 35 ITR 673 (AP)). Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of commission to the selling agents claimed by the assessee. The last ruling, reported in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 ; [1991] UPTC 125 (SC), cited by learned counsel for the assessee, does not throw any light upon the contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the assessee has no merit. In Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT [1979] l20 ITR 872, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has indicated that if the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment only partially and gave a specific direction to the Income-tax Officer, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the admissibility or otherwise of development rebate. ....