Commissioner of Income Tax vs V.N.A.S. Chandran

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1982-83 is :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that any appeal to the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) will lie against an addition made in the reassessment u/s 147(b) of the Act, when the same addition has been made in the

original assessment u/s 143(3) and has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ?

The assessee is an individual. The original assessment was completed on March 19, 1985, determining a loss of Rs. 7,80,599. While making

this assessment the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3 lakhs u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was reopened u/s

147(b), as a disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) was not considered. The reassessment was completed on April 9, 1987. In the course of the

reassessment, the Assessing Officer adopted the income as assessed in the original assessment as the starting point (i.e., after disallowance of Rs. 3

lakhs u/s 40A(3)) and made further additions.

The appeal filed by the assessee against the original assessment was dismissed after observing ""as the original assessment does not subsist after

the reassessment, the appellant''s representative has no objection to this appeal being dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of reassessment and in that appeal he succeeded. The Commissioner deleted the disallowance of

Rs. 3,00,000 u/s 40A(3). That deletion was upheld by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Sun

Engineering Works (P.) Ltd., , wherein it was held that in reassessment proceedings it was not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded

items unconnected with the escapement of income for the purpose of computation of the income escaping assessment, and submits that the appeal

against what had been held against the assessee in the original assessment could not be made the subject-matter of the appeal against the order of

reassessment and that appeal did not refer to the escaped income for assessing which the reassessment was done. This submission is required to

be upheld. However, we must observe that the assessee had been dealt with unfairly. The assessee was persuaded to consent to the dismissal of

the appeal against the original assessment because of the view that the appellate authority had entertained and had conveyed to the assessee''s

representative that the original assessment does not subsist for any purpose after the reassessment. The assessee had consented to the dismissal of

the appeal on the bona fide assumption that matter which he had wanted to agitate against the assessment could be agitated in the appeal against

the revised assessment.

It is only fair that if the assessee were to seek reopening of that appeal, the authorities permit such reopening. As the assessee has not appeared

before us there is no way of ascertaining as to whether the assessee wants to have that appeal reopened.

The question referred to us is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.