COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GEO INDUSTRIES and INSECTICIDES (I) PVT. LTD.

N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :

The assessee is a company and the original assessment in the case of assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was completed under s. 143(3) of the IT

Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on 17th September, 1975 determining the total income, after carrying forward the loss relating

to the cashew department which was closed during the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1972-73. The CIT thereafter initiated suo motu

revision proceedings under s. 263 of the Act on the ground that the set off of loss from the defunct cashew nut business against the profit of the

business in the manufacture and sale of pesticides was erroneous. As the entire case depends upon the proper interpretation of the order of the

CIT, the relevant passage of the order of the CIT is quoted which reads as under :

the losses of the cashew department and the losses of the hessian department (if any) cannot be set off against the profits of the insecticides

department for and from the asst. yr. 1974-75. Since this has been done the orders were certainly erroneous and they would be prejudicial to the

interests of the Revenue because in the long run, the total income would be reduced. It may be mentioned that the losses in the cashew department

for the asst. yr. 1971-72 was Rs. 2,90,273 with unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 9,332. In the circumstances, I shall set aside the assessments for

the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and direct the ITO to make fresh assessments in accordance with law so as to exclude the losses of the cashew

department and of the hessian department (if any) after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee-company.

The ITO thereafter made a fresh assessment under s. 143 of the Act in pursuance of the directions of the CIT, given in the revision. In the said

assessment proceedings, the ITO accepted the claim that even ignoring the cashew department loss, there was available loss in pesticides

department to be set off against the net profit. However, the assessee made a claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 79,000 representing certain

damages payment which were disallowed for the asst. yr. 1976-77 on the ground that it did not represent the loss of that year, but related to the

assessment year prior to 1976-77. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the CIT in the revisional order set aside the

order of assessment only for a specific purpose of excluding the loss from the cashew department and it was not open to the assessee to make a

claim for the deduction of Rs. 79,000 in the fresh assessment made on the basis of the directions of the CIT.

The assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) held that there is nothing in law preventing the ITO from going through the question

of set off of the loss of Rs. 79,000 and he, therefore, directed the ITO to examine the matter on merits for allowance on the damages payment.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal following a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax

Vs. Seth Manicklal Fomra (by L.Rs.), held that when the ITO makes a fresh assessment, he has all powers at the time of making assessment in

terms of s. 143(3) of the Act and the CIT(A) was justified in directing the ITO to consider the claim of the assessee for deduction of the sum of

Rs. 79,000 in the fresh assessment made on the basis of the directions of the CIT. The Revenue has sought for a reference and the Tribunal has

stated a case and referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for our consideration :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when an order of assessment is set aside under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, the power

of the ITO to make a fresh assessment is confined to the direction given by the CIT.

Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the jurisdiction of the ITO is limited by the order of the CIT and the order of

the CIT qualified the powers of the ITO as he employed the expression, so as to exclude the loss of the cashew department. He, therefore,

submitted that the order of the CIT is qualified and it is limited to consider the loss of cashew department and hessian department and hence, the

provisions of s. 143(3) of the Act are not applicable. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions : Modi Industries

Limited, Modinagar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Another, , CIT vs. Seth Manicklal Fomra (supra), Raja D.V.

Seetharamayya Bahadur Vs. Sixth Wealth-tax Officer, , Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K. Ulagammal Achi, ; Faizunnissa Begam Vs.

Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, , Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mansa Ram and Sons, , Katihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of

Income Tax (Central A), 15 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Multimetals Ltd., .

Mr. K. Ramagopal, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the CIT consists of 3 limbs; firstly, the CIT

set aside the assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75, secondly, the CIT directed for fresh assessment in accordance with law and thirdly, he directed

the ITO to exclude the loss of cashew department and to give an opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that the order of the CIT is not a

restricted one and when the entire assessment is set aside, the ITO was not justified in refusing to consider the claim of the assessee for deduction

towards damages payment of the sum of Rs. 79,000. He submitted that the order of the CIT should be read in the light of the principle that there

must be a proper and just assessment and when the direction was to compute the income, no restriction can be placed on the powers of the ITO

to consider the assessees claim for deduction towards damages payment.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel. Under s. 263 of the Act the revisional powers of the CIT are wide.

In CIT vs. Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works (1986) 231 ITR 53 , the apex Court held that the revisional powers conferred

on the CIT under s. 263 are of wide amplitude. The CIT under s. 263 of the Act, after examining the records and after making an enquiry, is

empowered to pass such orders as the circumstances of the case would justify and he may pass an order enhancing the assessment; he can modify

the assessment or he may cancel the assessment and direct for a fresh assessment. The CIT in the instant case has set aside the assessment for the

years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and directed the ITO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law so as to exclude the losses of the cashew

department and hessian department (if any) after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. The order of the CIT setting aside the assessment

and his direction to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law cannot be read in isolation, but, it must be read in the context in which the

CIT has exercised his powers of revision. We have seen on the facts of the case that all three businesses cannot be regarded as one and it was

fairly represented before the CIT that the loss incurred by the assessee in cashew department and the hessian department cannot be set off against

the profits from the insecticide department. The irresistable conclusion one reaches is that the set off of the loss from the two different and distinct

businesses against the profits of other business was not warranted by the provisions of the law and the direction of the CIT to exclude the losses of

the cashew department and the hessian department has to be read along with or coupled with his earlier direction to make a fresh assessment in

accordance with law. In other words, he directed the ITO to make a fresh assessment after excluding the losses in the cashew department and

hessian department and therefore, it is not permissible for the assessee to pick out one portion of the order of the CIT and contend that the order

of assessment in its entirety was set aside. The order of the CIT has to be read in the context in which he initiated the revisional proceedings, the

order passed in the revision and his final conclusion.

There are two lines of cases falling on either side of the line. In CIT vs. Seth Manicklal Fomra (supra), this Court held that the powers of the

ITO to make the assessment are derived under the statutory provisions of s. 143(3) of the Act and any observation made by the appellate

authority in the order of appeal would not bind the ITO to consider any other item which could be the subject-matter of consideration for

assessment. The cases falling on the otherside of the line are CIT vs. S. K. Ulagammal Achi (supra), Raja D. V. Seetharamayya Bahadur vs.

WTO (supra), Faizunnissa Begam vs. Asstt. CED (supra) CIT s. Mansa Ram and Sons (supra), Katihar Jute Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and

CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (supra) and they are to the effect that when the assessment is not set aside, the powers of the ITO are limited to those

items directed to be considered by the higher authority. But, all the above cases relied on by the learned counsel for both the parties are

distinguishable as they are all cases where certain additions have been made by the ITO on his own when he completed the assessment on the

basis of directions of the higher authorities. In the instant case, even if we assume that the CIT has not set aside the entire assessment, but set aside

the order of the ITO in part, even then, the action of the ITO to refuse to consider the claim of the assessee is not legally justifiable.

We are of the view that, when the assessee made a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment

proceedings, it is the duty of the ITO to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. The present case is not a case where the assessee made a

claim with reference to a matter which was concluded and has became final in the original assessment proceedings. But, on the other hand, it was

found in the subsequent years assessment proceedings that the liability of the assessee had accrued when the suit for injunction filed by the assessee

was dismissed by the city civil Court, Madras and in view of the subsequent event that the deduction might relate to the present assessment year,

the assessee made a claim for deduction of the damages and when such a claim was made, the ITO was bound to examine the claim on merits and

it is not open to him to reject the claim even at the threshold and refuse to entertain the claim. The zeal of the ITO to carry out the directions of the

higher authority may be justified, but at the same time it should not prevent him from examining the claim of the assessee on merits. His duty to

make an assessment does not begin and end with the carrying out the directions of the CIT and his duty is something more, that is, to determine the

correct taxable income. We are of the opinion, nothing precludes the assessee from making a claim before the ITO at the time of finalisation of the

assessment proceedings and equally nothing prevents the ITO from examining the claim on merits of the matter. It is well to remember that the

assessment was being redone by the ITO within four years from the date of the original assessment order and when he is on the process of the

completion of the assessment, he is bound to consider each and every claim preferred by the assessee. Let us imagine a case of a concluded

assessment and there are no pending assessment proceedings, but when the assessee makes a claim for deduction of losses, the ITO cannot refuse

to entertain the claim and he may reject the claim on the parameters found in s. 154 of the Act. In the instant case, it is a stronger case for the

assessee as the ITO was directed to determine the correct total income of the assessee according to law and during that proceedings when the

assessee makes a claim, the ITO is bound to consider the claim of the assessee. We are of the opinion that, while considering such a claim, the

question of fulfilment of the conditions for rectification is not a sine qua non and even the conditions to rectify the mistakes are not present, the ITO,

in our opinion, should examine the claim of the assessee on merits of the case. The power of the ITO to make the assessment as observed by this

Court in CIT vs. Seth Manicklal Fomra (supra) is derived from the statutory provisions of s. 143(3) of the Act. Though the Supreme Court in the

case of Modi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has held that the jurisdiction of the ITO is derived from the order of the CIT, his jurisdiction to allow

or disallow the carry forward losses of the defunct business would be derived from the order of the CIT, but in other respects and for completing

the assessment, his powers would be traceable to s. 143(3) of the Act. This Court in Faizunnissa Begam vs. Asstt. CED (supra) has indicated such

an approach and it was held that in so far as other items not considered by the higher authorities are concerned, the power of the ITO to reassess

the income would be traceable to the provisions of the statute. Therefore, the refusal of the ITO even to consider the claim of the assessee is not

justifiable and we are of the opinion that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were right in directing the ITO to consider the claim of the assessee on

the merits of the matter. Though we are not agreeing with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the entire assessment order was set aside by the

CIT, still the power of the ITO to consider the claim of the assessee is neither curtailed nor taken away by the order of the CIT. The ITO was

bound to consider the claim of the assessee under s. 143(3) of the Act when he was in final process of assessment in the determination of total

income of the assessee as the assessment pursuant to the directions of the CIT has not reached the stage of finality. We find that the Central Board

is more liberal in its approach and directed the ITO to consider the claim of statutory deduction even when the assessee has not made such a claim

[Vide : Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dt. 11th April, 1955 : Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II, . We are of

the opinion, such an attitude of the ITO would instil confidence in the minds of the taxpayer that his income would be properly determined and he is

not required to pay the tax, neither one paise more nor one paise less than what is correctly and rightly due in accordance with and under the

provisions of the statute. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is sustainable in law, though for different

reasons stated above.

Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to costs of a

sum of Rs. 750.