Posted On by &filed under Judgements.


Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Ahmedabad
Chandanben Mohanlal, Smt. vs Ito on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: (1980) 9 TTJ Ahd 17


ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, VALIDITY OF–Restoration of matter to an earlier stage.

Ratio :

Restoration of matter by Tribunal to the stage of assessee’s application for rectification of order under section 143(1) was not justified.

Facts :

Return was filed in the status of HUF. The Income Tax Officer, however, adopted the status as individual.Application was made by assessee for rectification under section 154. The same was rejected by the Income Tax Officer. After noting that the question of status could not have been settled in section 143(1) proceeding, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to succeed in the appeal, but immediately thereafter the Tribunal further directed that the matter would be restored to the Income Tax Officer stage where assessment was, made under section 143(1)(a) and where the assessee’s application under section 143(2) was pending.

Held :

The final conclusion of the Tribunal is a composite one covering both section 154 and section 143(2) aspects. No doubt, technically the assessee is right when he points out that the Tribunal should not have come to the application under section 143(2) at all. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is set aside.

Income Tax Act 1961 s.253

Tribunal–JURISDICTION–Tribunal restoring the matter to the stage of application for rectification of s. 143(1) order.

Ratio:

(i) Restoration of matter by Tribunal to the stage of assessee’s application for rectification of section 143(1) order is not justified.

(ii) Simultaneous proceedings are neither contemplated nor permissible under the two sub-sections of section 143.

Facts:

Return was filed in the status of HUF. The assessing officer, however, adopted the status as individual. Application was made by assessee for rectification under section 154. The same was rejected by the assessing officer. After noting that the question of status could not have been settled in section 143(1) proceeding the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to succeed in the appeal, but immediately thereafter the Tribunal further directed that the matter would be restored to the assessing officer’s stage where assessment was made under section 143(1)(a) and where the assessee’s application under section 143(2) was pending.

Held:

The final conclusion of the Tribunal is a composite one covering both section 154 and section 143(2) aspects. No doubt, technically the assessee is right when he points out that the Tribunal should not have come to the application under section 143(2) at all. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is set aside.

Application:

Also to current assessment years.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.104 seconds.