CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Amendment in the clause (a) of section 251(1) has been made so as to provide that the Commissioner (Appeals) may not set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment with a view to help bringing an early finalization of the assessment, it cannot be assumed that the Commissioner (Appeals) is divested of the power to annul the assessment and then to pass appropriate consequential order. In the instant case, the factual aspect has been that the order as passed by the Assessing Officer which was subject of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), was not an original order of assessment but was an order of assessment passed after remand by the Tribunal. The directions in remand order having not been complied with, the course as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be said to be de hors the powers available to him under the statute.
Ordinarily, it is not incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to adjourn the case again when a last opportunity had already been granted to the Counsel for assessee, however, there may be number of circumstances where adjournment becomes necessary, in the interest of justice.
Whether the decision of the three-judge-bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries reported in [1976] 102 ITR 281 so far as it lays down the law that the requirement of recording reasons under section 127(1) of the Income tax Act is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee is still a good law in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074, and State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669 as held by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Arti Ship Breaking vs. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and others reported in (2000) 244 ITR 333.
Section 10A is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. This was emphasised in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court while construing the provisions of Section 10B in Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (2010) 325 ITR 102 at para 24.
What is meant by the term change of opinion? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under Section 147 of the Act, even within four year, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to income alleged to have escaped assessment and whether and when in such cases reopening is valid or invalid on the ground of change of opinion?
In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India this Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the present challenge to the impugned Award by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection of the Respondent to the maintainability of the present petition under Section 34 of the Act requires to be upheld. This will not preclude, of course, the Petitioner from seeking other appropriate remedies that may be available in accordance with law.
A confession of the co-accused is admissible only under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. One of the essential requirements of the said provision is that the two accused should be tried jointly. Since the confession of the co-accused is not admissible as he is not being jointly tried with the Petitioner and besides this piece of evidence there is no other evidence, no charge can be framed against the Petitioner for offence under Section 135A of the Customs Act.
As is clear from the arguments of Mr. Bhushan, whole attempt was to say that divulgence of ACR is in public interest. That is precisely the CIC is asked to find out. The matter is still at large and the appellant can always argue this before the CIC. What is important is that the procedure under Section 11(1), which is mandatory has to be followed which includes, giving of notice to the concerned officer information whose ACR is sought for.
Whether when notice u/s 148 is issued, Revenue is not required to verify the change in address of the assessee – Whether when assessee is aware of the fact that a notice has been issued but wrongly dispatched to his old address, the same is to be treated as deemed served – Whether the requirement u/s 149 is to ‘issue notice’ and not ‘service of notice’ as mandated u/s 34 of I-T Act, 1922.
Whether the income of the assessee being a Trust can be computed on commercial principles and while doing so whether depreciation on fixed assets can be allowed. On this issue, there seems to be a consensus of judicial thinking, having regard to the consensus of judicial opinion, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. There does not appear to be any contrary view plausible on the question raised before us and at any rate no judgment taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice.
