CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 01 RAJ CK 0084

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Jewels Emporium

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 24 January 2002 · Citation: (2004) 186 CTR 464 : (2002) 257 ITR 736

HON’BLE JUDGES
Y.R. Meena, J · A.C. Goyal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
IT Application No. 37 of 2001 24 January 2002 & Income Tax Appeal No. 37 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 357 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the Department.

2.

In the first question, the issue pertains to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer was bound by the direction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his appellate order while setting aside the assessment order for fresh consideration.

3.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is always a superior authority and he can give any direction on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the provisions of the Act. If the Assessing Officer or the 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 of Income Tax (Appeals) is given power for directions to the Assessing Officer, that curtails the power of the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5.

The issue raised is also baseless. In the scheme of the Act when the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is the appellate authority, he has every right to correct the mistakes in the order of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (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 in conformity with the provisions and the 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 u/s 260A of the Act of 1961. 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 the admission stage.