ORDER
R.M. Mehta, Vice President
1. Both these appeals are directed against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A) with reference to the two orders passed by the AO under Section 154 for the asst. yr. 1986-87. Taking up ITA No. 1705/Del/l999, the following grounds, which highlight the exact grievances aired by the assessee, are as follows :.
“01. The order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law.
02. The learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the order of the higher authorities i.e. Tribunal and the High Court of Delhi, who have held that the order passed by the AO on 2nd Sept., 1987 is an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act.
03. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244(1A) of IT Act from the date of the assessment i.e. 2nd Sept., 1987 r/w the provision of the Section 140A(2) of the IT Act till the date of actual payment of refund.
04. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO’s assessment order dt. 18th March, 1991 is an order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act r/w the Section 148.
05. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the claim of the assessee for grant of interest is unjustified.
06. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee’s application under Section 154 was without jurisdiction.
07. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee’s appeal is not maintainable.
08. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appeal of the assessee is without jurisdiction and is required to be dismissed.”
2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the present appeal pertains to the order passed by the CIT(A) whereby he has upheld the action of the AO in rejecting the assessee’s application under Section 154. The other relevant facts are that for the assessment year under consideration i.e., 1986-87 the assessee filed the original return of income on 20th June, 1986 declaring a loss of Rs. 4,151. It was mentioned in the return that there was a brought forward loss of Rs. 11,175 from the previous assessment year i.e. 1985-86 and a total loss of Rs. 15,326 was claimed to be carried forward.
3. A perusal of the P&L a/c and the balance-sheet of the assessee indicated that during the asst. yr. 1986-87 as also in asst. yr. 1985-86 the assessee did not carry on the stipulated business of sale and purchase of shares, but engaged itself in borrowing and lending money on interest and the loss arose on account of the difference in the interest rates as also the claim on account of certain administrative expenses.
4. A year later i.e. on 23rd June, 1987 the assessee filed a revised return showing the same loss of Rs. 4,151 and the carried forward loss of Rs. 11,175, but claiming TDS of Rs. 10,100 on a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 advanced to M/s Blitz Publication (P) Ltd. Along with the revised return the assessee filed the said TDS certificate and claimed refund thereof. The AO made an assessment Under Section 143(1) on 28th July, 1987 and accepted the returned loss of Rs. 4,151.
5. It is to be noted as a very relevant fact at this stage that while the assessment proceedings were in progress with the AO it came to the notice of the Department and the relevant assessment year being 1986-87 that a Japanese company M/s Sumitomo Corporation, Tokyo, had paid to the assessee a sum of Rs. 1,61,52,472 plus Rs. 21,71,121 for asst. yr. 1986-87 by way of commission in respect of purchases made by the Department of Electronics, Government of India, from the said M/s Sumitomo Corporation. This amount was paid at London in the account of Allied Petro Agencies. This information was passed on by the Government of India to the IT Department.
6. The assessee in the meantime i.e. on 17th Aug., 1987 addressed a letter to the CIT, Delhi-III, wherein it admitted the commission income of Rs. 1.61 crores and odd and offered to pay the tax thereon. The AO, however, had already completed the assessment under Section 143(1) on 29th July, 1987 and the information which came to his possession about the commission paid to the assessee did not feature either in the return of income or in the books of accounts. He issued a notice under Section 148 on 31st Aug., 1987, seeking to reassess the assessee’s income including the commission income. The assessee on the same date i.e., 31st Aug., 1987 filed an application with reference to the assessment order made under Section 143(1) submitting that its total income assessed on the basis of its P&L a/c, balance sheet and return was not correct as it did not take into account the subsequent disclosure made to the CIT, Delhi-III, in letter dt. 17th Aug., 1987 wherein the assessee had offered an amount of Rs. 1.61 crores for taxation. It was also submitted in the said communication that taxes had been paid on the aforesaid amounts to the tune of Rs. 1 crore and odd on 19th Aug., 1987 and a further sum of Rs. 17,144 on 27th Aug., 1987.
7. It was noted as a fact by the tax authorities that whereas to the objection filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(1) the company had offered to be assessed on the sum of Rs. 1.61 crores, but while filing the return of income against the issue of notice under Section 148 (under protest) on 1st Oct., 1987 it did not include the said income, but offered a total loss of Rs. 4,151. It was also noticed that in Part III of the return wherein particulars of income claimed to be exempt from tax are indicated, it was stated that the company had filed a petition to the CIT-III on 17th Aug., 1987 offering further income of Rs. 1.61 crores and entire taxes thereof had been paid. It was noted that although the assessee did not admit this income in the return, it used the assessment challans and paid the sum of Rs. 1 crore and odd and Rs. 17,144 on 19th Aug., 1987 and 27th Aug., 1987 respectively in the Government Treasury.
8. The AO on the basis of the aforesaid facts initially rejected the application made under Section 143(2)(a) of the assessee made vide letter dt. 2nd Sept., 1987 informing it that the objection was invalid as there was no fact to indicate that the assessment made was incorrect, inadequate or incomplete in any material respect since the same had been completed on the amount of income declared by the assessee.
9. The next step on the part of the AO was that he passed an order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 148 wherein he assessed the amount of commission income offered by the assessee in its letter to the CIT, Delhi-III. However, subsequently on the basis of the material placed before the appellate authorities indicating that the amount in question, although received would be assessable only when a no claim letter was issued by the Department of Electronics and not in asst. yr. 1986-87 the amount of commission income offered was deleted. The AO subsequently while giving effect to the orders of the appellate authorities granted refund to the assessee under Section 244(1A). The assessee had claimed that it should be given refund from the date on which the money was deposited in the Government Treasury i.e. w.e.f. 27th Aug., 1987, but the AO held that the assessee would be entitled for interest only from the date of the regular assessment. This was the assessment made on 18th March, 1991 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 148. In the light of the aforesaid view of the AO the interest granted to the assessee was in a sum of Rs. 14,00,025.
10. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an application under Section 154 before the AO wherein it was stated that there was a mistake apparent from the record inasmuch as the interest should have been granted from 19th Aug., 1987 to 31st March, 1992 instead of from 18th March, 1991 to 31st March, 1992. This plea was rejected by the AO vide order dt. 15th May, 1998, and on further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO and held that grant of interest of Rs. 14,00,025 was justified. The assessee moved another application under Section 154 before the AO contending that the regular assessment had been made on 2nd Sept., 1987, when the AO rejected the assessee’s application under Section 143(2)(a) without dealing with the objections on merits. For the aforesaid submission the assessee sought to derive strength from the orders of the CIT(A), the Tribunal as also the Hon’ble High Court wherein it had been, held that where an assessee had filed an objection in Form No. 6A the AO could not reject it summarily and was obliged to pass an order under Section 143(3) and if such an order was not passed the rejection would be considered as an order against which an appeal would lie. The plea, in other words, was that since the appellate authorities had held the action of the AO in rejecting the assessee’s application in Form No. 6-A as being not justified and since the assessee was permitted to file an appeal against the said order, then for purposes of grant of refund and interest thereon the date of regular assessment should be considered as 2nd Sept., 1987 when the AO rejected the assessee’s
application under Section 143(2)(a).
11. The aforesaid submissions did not find favour with the CIT(A), who
observed/held as follows ;
(i) The liability of the Central Government to pay interest arose only in respect
of an amount paid in pursuance of an assessment order or penalty order and
under Section 244(1A) the Central Government was not obliged to pay interest on
any type of miscellaneous receipt that it got. That the amount of Rs. 1 crore
and odd and Rs. 17,000 and odd paid by the assessee on 19th Aug., 1987 and
27th Aug., 1987, respectively were not due to the Government under the
statute since the assessee’s return of income both original and revised showed
only a loss of Rs. 4,151 and the assessment order passed accepted the said
return of income;
(ii) The aforesaid view was further strengthened by the assessee’s own action
when in the return filed in pursuance to notice under Section 148 it did not admit the
taxability of the sum of Rs. 1.61 crores and odd. That the aforesaid amount was
claimed as exempt in Part III of the return;
(iii) That the amount paid by the assessee was an ad hoc payment and was not
in the nature of a tax or penalty, much less, a tax or penalty paid in pursuance
of an assessment or a penalty order. The Central Government, therefore, was
under no obligation within the meaning of Section 244(1A) to pay any interest on
such amount; and
(iv) That the appeal by the assessee was otherwise not maintainable and required to be dismissed on this ground itself. It was clear from the record that the AO while giving effect to the order of the appellate authorities holding that the amount in question is not taxable in asst. yr. 1986-87 allowed interest only from the date of the assessment order made on 18th March, 1991 i.e. the date of the regular assessment. The amount paid on ad hoc basis on 19th Aug., 1987 and 29th Aug., 1987 got converted into payments towards regular assessment on the date of assessment i.e. 18th March, 1991 and not earlier. The same issue had travelled to the CIT(A) earlier and vide order dt. 30th June, 1998 it was held by the first appellate authority that the action of the AO was justified and the assessee’s appeal consequently was dismissed. In other words, the order of the AO merged with the order of the first appellate authority dt. 30th June, 1998 and the AO did not have any jurisdiction to consider again the issue of interest and nor did the assessee have any right to move an application under Section 154 before the AO claiming interest under Section 244(1A) from a date prior to 18th March, 1991.
12. In view of the aforesaid the CIT(A) in para 10 of his order held that the assessee was not entitled for the grant of any interest from a date prior to 18th March, 1991 and further the appeal was without jurisdiction and, therefore, not maintainable.
13. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the arguments advanced before the CIT(A) highlighting, at the outset, that the solitary and main issue was whether the regular assessment in this case had been completed on 2nd Sept., 1987, or the same had been completed on 18th March, 1991, and the determination of which had to decide the date from which the
interest under Section 244(1A) became available to the assessee. At the outset, the learned counsel referred to the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case pertaining to asst. yr. 1986-87 itself in ITA Nos. 1610 & 1666 (Del) of 1989 dt. 10th Dec., 1991 highlighting the observations in para 5 of the said order wherein the. Tribunal had been pleased to hold that the letter dt. 2nd Sept., 1987, written to the assessee with reference to the filing of objections under Section 143(2)(a) in Form No. 6-A was to be construed as an order under Section 143(3) and accordingly appealable to the first appellate authority. The learned counsel thereafter referred to p. 78 of his paper book, which was a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court contending that the reference application filed by the Department against the aforesaid view expressed by the Tribunal stood rejected although we, at the outset, note that their Lordships declined to answer the question on the ground that the matter was purely academic.
14. The learned counsel next took us to p. 21 of his paper book, which was a copy of the letter impugned dt. 2nd Sept., 1987, addressed by the AO to the assessee rejecting the application filed under Section 143(2)(a) in Form No. 6-A. A reference thereafter was made to pp. 13 and 14 of the paper book which contain grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) and the reference thereafter was to pp. 16 to 18, which was a copy of the letter dt. 17th Aug., 1987, addressed to the CIT, Delhi-III, which was in the form of a disclosure pertaining to the income from commission earned from M/s. Sumitomo Corporation. According to the, learned counsel the AO was aware of the revised return when he proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 143(1).
15. The further submissions of the learned counsel were to the effect that taxes paid under Section 140A(2) were deemed to have been paid towards regular assessment and further all ingredients of Section 244(1A) were present and after the order of the Tribunal dt. 10th Dec., 1991, in the assessee’s own case as also the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejecting the reference-application filed by the Revenue there remained no controversy as to which was the assessment order. It was emphasized that the communication of the AO dt. 2nd Sept., 1987 (p. 21 of the paper book) was to be treated as an assessment order under Section 143(3).
16. Coming to the reported decisions on the subject, the learned counsel, at the outset, stated that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation and Anr. (1995) 212. FTR 404 (SC) if presumed to be against the assessee was not applicable since it pertained to a period when Section 244(1A) was not on the statute book. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. (1990) 33 ITD 44 (Del) and a reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sag Construction Associates v. Union of India and Ors. (1998) 234 ITR 501 (Del). In concluding it was urged by the learned counsel that since the assessee’s money had remained with the Government and had been utilised by it then interest under Section 244(1A) was to be paid for the entire period of utilization and vis-a-vis the provisions of law it had to be from the date of regular assessment and which was framed on 2nd
Sept., 1987. We must, at this stage, categorically observe that the learned counsel did not advance any argument initially on the question of maintainability or otherwise of the appeal before the CIT(A) and which had been specifically aired in ground No. 7.
17. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the order passed by the CIT(A) and subsequent arguments advanced were a reiteration of the reasons recorded by the first appellate authority in rejecting the assessee’s claim. The main plank of his argument was that although the amounts in question had been paid by the assessee the same could not be treated as self-assessment tax since in the revised return the amount of commission had not been shown as taxable. The learned Departmental Representative was categorical in accepting that in case the amount would have been offered for tax in the revised return, then the tax paid would have to be treated as towards self-assessment tax. The learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to the definition contained in Section 2(43) of the IT ‘Act, 1961. In conclusion it was urged that since the order of the CIT(A) was valid both on facts and in law, the Tribunal be pleased to confirm the same.
18. In reply the learned counsel for the assessee stated with reference to p. 11 of his paper book which was a portion of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 30th June, 1998 deciding the assessee’s appeals for asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 in proceedings under Section 154 contending that the first appellate authority had not considered provisions of Section 140A(2) and the further submission was that there was ho merger of the first order passed by the AO under Section 154 with the order dt. 30th June, 1998 (supra) passed by the CIT(A) and the fresh adjudication in the second order was valid in law. A reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT and Anr. (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC).
19. We have examined the rival submissions and also perused the orders of the tax authorities. The decisions cited at the bar by the parties have also been taken into account. At the outset, we would like to extract certain provisions of the IT Act, 1961 which are relevant to decide the point at issue.
20. Section 244 (1A) reads as under :
“244. (1A) Where the whole or any part of the refund referred to in Sub-section (1) is due to the assessee, as a result of any amount having been paid by him after the 31st day of March, 1975, in pursuance of any order of assessment or penalty and such amount or any part thereof having been found in appeal or other proceeding under this Act to be in excess of the amount which such assessee is liable to pay as tax or penalty, as the case may be, under this Act, the Central Government shall pay to such assessee simple interest at the rate specified in Sub-section (1) on the amount so found to be in excess from the date on which such amount was paid to the date on which the refund is granted.”
21. Section 140A(1) speaks of tax payable on the basis of a return filed under Section 139 or Section 148 after taking into account the amount of tax, if any already paid under any provision of this Act.
22. Section 140A(2) states that as and when a regular assessment is completed
under Section 143 or Section 144 then any amount paid under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment.
23. The following position emerges from the aforesaid provisions :
(1) Section 244(1A) speaks of “any amount having been paid….. after the 31st day of March, 1975, in pursuance of an order of assessment or penalty”;
(2) Section 140A(1) speaks of tax payable on the basis of any return required to be furnished under Section 139 or Section 148; and
(3) Section 140A(2) provides that self-assessment tax shall be deemed to have been
paid towards a regular assessment only after such an assessment has been
made.
Considering the aforesaid let us examine the facts of the present case.
24. The assessee filed original return of income on 20th June, 1986, declaring a
loss of Rs. 4,151 and a year later i.e. on 23rd June, 1987, filed a revised return
showing the same figure but claiming refund of the TDS deducted of Rs. 10,100
on a payment made. The AO made an assessment under Section 143(1) on 29th July,
1987, accepting the returned loss of Rs. 4,151.
25. In the meantime it came to the notice of the Department that the assessee had received a huge amount of commission from M/s. Sumitomo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan and which had a bearing on asst. yr. 1986-87. The assessee addressed a communication to the CIT admitting the said commission income and offered to pay the tax thereon. A sum of Rs. 1,01,56,304 was paid on 19th Aug., 1987 and another sum of Rs. 17,144 was paid on 27th Aug., 1987. The other relevant fact is that notice under Section 148 was issued by the AO on 31st Aug., 1987 to reassess the assessee’s income including the commission income. On the same date i.e. 31st Aug., 1987, the assessee filed an application under Section 143(2)(a) against the assessment order passed under Section 143(1) on 29th July, 1987.
26. It was noted by the AO that whereas in the aforesaid application the assessee stated that its correct income had not been assessed as its disclosure of huge additional income to the CIT had not been taken into account yet in the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 the assessee did not include the commission income, but mentioned in Part III of the return that a petition had been filed to the CIT offering further income of Rs. 1.61 crores and odd.
27. What is noteworthy is that the taxes in question were paid on 19th Aug., 1987 and 27th Aug., 1987, respectively when the assessment under Section 143(1) was made earlier on 29th July, 1987. It is not the assessee’s case that these payments were made with reference to the revised return filed on 23rd June, 1987 and which culminated in Section 143(1) order on 29th July, 1987.
28. The application filed under Section 143(2)(a) came to be rejected vide letter order dt. 2nd Sept., 1987, but which came to set aside on appeal to the CIT(A) for purposes of allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) is dt. 12th Jan., 1989 and appended at pp. 22 to 26 of the paper book. This order of the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal on 10th Dec., 1991. No doubt both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that the letter dt. 2nd Sept., 1987 sent by the AO to the assessee was to be construed as an order
under Section 143(3) but this view has to be understood in the context in which it is rendered i.e., whether an appeal lies against such letter/order to the CIT(A), It is not an order in which there is a determination of the assessee’s tax liability vis-a-vis the present facts. It would have been a different thing in case there had been a modification of the earlier order passed under Section 143(1) leading to a recomputation of the taxable income and consequential tax effects. In such a case it could have been treated as an order passed under Section 143(3), but the AO on the facts of the case filed the application.
29. Further as already stated the letter/order dt. 2nd Sept., 1987, was set aside by the GIT(A) and our mind straightaway goes to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation and Anr. (supra). The facts in that case were that the assessee–a company in liquidation received compensation from the Government for its takeover. In the original assessment made under the 1922 Act the income therefrom was assessed to tax. On appeal, the AAC vide order dt. 6th March, 1969 set aside the assessment and directed the ITO to make an assessment afresh, The assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal and which came to be dismissed on 20th Sept., 1971. The ITO completed the fresh assessment on 14th Aug., 1973, on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 84,562 was found to be refundable. This amount was refunded in the same month, but the assessee claimed interest under Section 244(1) for the period commencing 6th March, 1969 to April, 1973. The ITO and the CIT in revision rejected the claim, but on a writ petition the Hon’ble High Court allowed the assessee’s petition. On appeal to the Supreme. Court, at the instance of the Revenue, their Lordships reversed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court and held that the assessee was not entitled to interest as the refund became due only upon the fresh assessment having been made in the month of April, 1973. The learned counsel for the assessee accepted that this decision was against the assessee, but he sought to distinguish it on the ground that it did not pertain to the provisions of Section 244(1A). We do not appreciate the aforesaid difference being highlighted since the basic scheme is the same. As already stated, in the assessee’s case the assessment under Section 143(3)/148 came to be made much later i.e. on 18th March, 1991 and considering the relevant provisions of law it would have to be held that the taxes paid in August, 1987 could be treated as paid towards the regular assessment within the meaning of Section 140A(2) only on the said date.
30. Coming to some of the other decisions relied upon by the parties during the course of the hearing in the case of Sag Construction Associates v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) their Lordships of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court were dealing with a situation where an assessee filed a return and order of assessment was made on 22nd Feb., 1983. An amount of Rs. 7,235 was deducted as TDS from the said assessee. On an appeal the AAC vide order dt. 13th Dec., 1985, set aside the order of assessment and thereafter a fresh order of assessment was made on 6th March, 1988. The assessee moved an application on 31st March, 1988, before the ITO asking for interest on the amount of Rs. 7,235 which became payable to the assessee consequent upon the order of assessment. The prayer was rejected and the assessee preferred an appeal, which was held to be not maintainable. Thereafter the assessee filed an application under Section 264 to the CIT and which came to be rejected by means of
an order dt. 22nd June, 1990, holding that Section 244(1A) was not attracted to the facts of the case. Against the order of the CIT under Section 264 the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and their Lordships applying the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (supra) took the view that as soon as an assessment is made and which in the case of the assessee was on 22nd Feb., 1983 the amount of TDS lost its character as such and the same was deemed to have been paid in pursuance to the order of assessment and the subsequent setting aside of the assessment would not convert the amount in question to its initial character of TDS. A similar view was in fact taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and the view of the Hon’ble Punjab. & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Leader Engg. Works (1989) 178 ITR 529 (P&H) was approved. During the course of the present hearing our attention was also invited to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and this pertains to advance tax.
31. In considering the aforesaid judgments we opine that these do not advance the assessee’s case as the amount of tax paid in August, 1987 can only be treated with reference to the return filed under Section 148 and as soon as the assessment was framed under the said section read with Section 143(3) on 18th March, 1991, then considering the provisions of Section 140A(2) the said taxes could have been treated as paid towards a regular assessment entitling the assessee to interest and which in fact has been awarded by the Department. In our opinion, it could under no circumstances be held that an order under Section 143(3) was passed vis-a-vis the letter dt. 2nd Sept., 1987 of the ITO filing the application made by the assessee under Section 143(2)(a) and which, as already opined on our part, was treated by the Tribunal as order under Section 143(3) for purposes of filing of an appeal and we have already in the earlier part of this order drawn a distinction between an order passed under Section 143(2)(a) where income is modified and so is also the tax liability and a mere letter from the AO without hearing the assessee filing the application itself. In other words, the assessee cannot draw any support from the observations of the Tribunal and we have already noted that the Hon’ble High Court declined to answer the reference taking note of the events, which had taken place in the assessee’s case.
32. The only other decision relied upon on behalf of the assessee was the one of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, in the case of ITO v. Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. (supra). The ground of appeal raised before the Tribunal on the part, of the Revenue was as under :
“The CIT(A) was not correct in law and on facts in holding that tax paid on self-assessment amounts to payment of tax in pursuance of an order of assessment and thereby allowing interest under Section 244(1A) in respect of payment under Section 140A of the IT Act.”
33. The issue is different in the appeal before us, but even considering the aforesaid decision it would not help the assessee since the view taken is that payment made under Section 140A would retain the character of self-assessment tax only upto the date of initial regular assessment and thereafter it would be
converted into a payment towards regular assessment on the date of the initial assessment. In the present case, we have the mitial assessment under Section 143(1) made on 29th July, 1987, and thereafter there is an assessment under Section 143(3)/148 made on 18th March, 1991. The payments on which the assessee is claiming interest under Section 244(1A) are made in between these dates and these obviously cannot be related back to the assessment under Section 143(1) and have necessarily to be related to the assessment made on 18th March, 1991. We have already given our opinion on the event which took place in between i.e., the letter dt. 2nd Sept., 1987, from the AO to the assessee and which on the facts of the present case, we do not treat as an order under Section 143(3).
34. In the final analysis, we uphold the action of the CIT(A) with reference to ITA No. 1705/Del/1999. We must, however, mention that no specific arguments were advanced by the parties on the view expressed by the CIT(A) about the non-maintainability of the appeal but deciding at length on merits and we have also done likewise. We, therefore, say nothing on ground No. 7 in the assessee’s appeal.
35. In ITA No. 4268/Del/1998, a number of grounds have been raised, but most of these are a repeat of those already raised in the earlier appeal and considered. No independent arguments are advanced by the parties and we really do not have to say anything further in the matter. In line with the view already expressed, the action of the CIT(A) stands confirmed.
36. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.