High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. V.N.A.S. Chandran
Section 246
Asst. Year 1982-83
R. Jayasimha Babu & A.K. Rajan, JJ.
Tax Case No. 1 of 1996
8th November, 2001
Counsel Appeared
Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. :
The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1982-83 is :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that any appeal to the CIT(A) will lie against an addition made in the reassessment under s. 147(b) of the Act, when the same addition has been made in the original assessment under s. 143(3) and has been confirmed by the CIT(A)”.
The assessee is an individual. The original assessment was completed on 19th March, 1985, determining a loss of Rs. 7,80,599 while making this assessment the AO made an addition of Rs. 3 lakh under s. 40A(3) of the IT Act. The assessment was reopened under s. 147(b), as a disallowance under s. 40A(2)(b) was not considered. The reassessment was completed on 9th April, 1987. In the course of the reassessment the AO adopted the income as assessed in the original assessment as starting point (i.e., after disallowance of Rs. 3 lakh under s. 40A(3) and made further additions. The appeal filed by the assessee against the original assessment was dismissed after observing “As the original assessment does not subsist after the reassessment, the appellant’s representative has no objection to this appeal being dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed.” The assessee filed an appeal against the order of reassessment and in that appeal he succeeded.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000 under s. 40A(3). That deletion was upheld by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 209 : (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) : TC 51R.314, wherein it was held that in reassessment proceedings it was not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items unconnected with the escapement of income for the purpose of computation of the income escaping assessment’, and submits that the appeal against what had been held against the assessee in the original assessment could not be made the subject-matter of the appeal against the order of reassessment and that appeal did not refer to the escaped income for assessing which the reassessment was done. This submission is required to be upheld. However, we must observe that the assessee had been dealt with unfairly. The assessee was persuaded to consent to the dismissal of the appeal against the original assessment because of the view that the appellate authority had entertained and had conveyed to the assessee’s representative that original assessment does not subsist for any purpose after the reassessment. The assessee had consented to the dismissal of the appeal on the bona fide assumption that matter which he had wanted to agitate against the assessment could be agitated in the appeal against the revised assessment. It is only fair that if the assessee were to seek reopening of that appeal, the authorities permit such reopening. As the assessee had not appeared before us there is no way of ascertaining as to whether the assessee wants to have that appeal reopened. The question referred to us is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
[Citation : 269 ITR 578]
