Cit Vs. Jewels Emporium - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/772437
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnJan-24-2002
Case NumberD.B. IT Application No. 37 of 2001 24 January 2002
Reported in[2002]124TAXMAN28(Raj)
AppellantCit
RespondentJewels Emporium
Advocates: J.K. Singhi, for the Revenue
Excerpt:
counsels: j.k. singhi, for the revenue in the rajasthan high court, jaipur bench y.r. meena & a.c. goyal, jj. - heard the learned counsel for the department.2. in the first question, the issue pertains to as to whether the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessing officer was bound by the direction given by the commissioner (appeals) in its appellate order while setting aside the assessment order for fresh consideration.3. the commissioner (appeals) is always superior authority and it can give any direction on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the provisions of the act. if the assessing officer or assessee has any grievance, the provisions are already there in the act to file an appeal before the tribunal. thus, no substantial question of law arises.4. in the second question, the issue raised is that if the commissioner (appeals) is given power for directions to the assessing officer, that curtails the power of the assessing officer under section 143(3) or 144 of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').5. the issue raised is also baseless. in the scheme of the act when the commissioner (appeals) is the appellate authority, it has every right to correct the mistakes in the order of the assessing officer and the commissioner (appeals) can give any direction in conformity with the provisions of the act. that does not curtail the power of the assessing officer rather that is inconformity with the provisions and scheme of the act. thus, no substantial question of law arises.6. in question no. 3, the issue raised is that the tribunal has wrongly deleted the addition of rs. 23,275, though the necessary evidence was not produced as to whether the addition was justified or not.7. when the finding of fact by the tribunal is not perverse, it cannot be challenged in appeal under section 260a. it is basically a question of fact and not a question of law. thus, there is no justification to admit the appeal on the basis of this question also.8. in the result, the appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.
Judgment:

Heard the learned counsel for the department.

2. In the first question, the issue pertains to as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessing officer was bound by the direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in its appellate order while setting aside the assessment order for fresh consideration.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) is always superior authority and it can give any direction on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the provisions of the Act. If the assessing officer or assessee has any grievance, the provisions are already there in the Act to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises.

4. In the second question, the issue raised is that if the Commissioner (Appeals) is given power for directions to the assessing officer, that curtails the power of the assessing officer under section 143(3) or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

5. The issue raised is also baseless. In the scheme of the Act when the Commissioner (Appeals) is the appellate authority, it has every right to correct the mistakes in the order of the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) can give any direction in conformity with the provisions of the Act. That does not curtail the power of the assessing officer rather that is inconformity with the provisions and scheme of the Act. Thus, no substantial question of law arises.

6. In question No. 3, the issue raised is that the Tribunal has wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 23,275, though the necessary evidence was not produced as to whether the addition was justified or not.

7. When the finding of fact by the Tribunal is not perverse, it cannot be challenged in appeal under section 260A. It is basically a question of fact and not a question of law. Thus, there is no justification to admit the appeal on the basis of this question also.

8. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.