Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kota v. Shri Prabhu Lal Bairagi, Vill. Bevardia, Dabi, Distt. Bundi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 72 / 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota. ----Appellant Versus Shri Prabhu Lal Bairagi, Vill. Bevardia, Dabi, Distt. Bundi. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 569 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota. ----Appellant Versus Shri Prabhu Lal Bairagi, Vill. Bevardia, Dabi, Distt. Bundi. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J.22/05/2017 1.By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department confirmed the order of theAssessing Officer. 2.This Court while admitting the appeal No.72/2008 on05.09.2008 has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of the Tribunal areperverse in upholding the order of theCIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.19,32,000/- which was made incompliance of the directions without whichrelief was not legally allowable?” 2.1. This Court while admitting the appeal No.569/2011 on08.11.2016 has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of the Tribunal areperverse in affirming the order of theCIT(A) whereby Rs.34,97,052/- wasallowed the benefit of telescoping?” 3.Counsel for the respondent Mr. Jhanwar has relied upon thedecision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lal Chand Agarwal (2003) 259 ITR 0497 wherein this court in para 10 to 12 has observed as under: “10From the above directions, it is crystalclear that the directions were limited onmaking fresh assessment or to give effectto the order of the Commissioner ofIncome-tax (Appeals). The AssessingOfficer while making the fresh assessmenthas gone beyond the directions given bythe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),and had valued the jewellery which wasseized by the Customs authority from thebank locker of Smt. Radha Devi, the motherof the assessee. The Commissioner ofIncome-tax (Appeals) in the second roundhas confirmed the view taken by theAssessing Officer without realising the factthat the direction in the first round ofproceeding was limited. 11 In appeal before the Tribunal, theTribunal after quoting the direction in para.10 and para. 11, of its order has observedas under : "Since the directions read with the relevantobservations were quite specific, it was not appropriate on the part of the AssessingOfficer to go beyond the scope of thedirections. The learned Assessing Officergot the valuation of the ornaments done bythe approved valuer who determined thevalue at Rs. 31,591 of the said ornamentsunder dispute. As per the directions of theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) inthe first round, the assessee is, therefore,entitled to relief of the amount equivalentto the difference between Rs. 13,56,000and Rs. 31,591. The Assessing Officer is,therefore, directed to allow the relief of Rs.13,24,409 in the hands of the threebrothers equally for the three appealsbefore us." "Since the directions read with the relevantobservations were quite specific, it was not appropriate on the part of the AssessingOfficer to go beyond the scope of thedirections. The learned Assessing Officergot the valuation of the ornaments done bythe approved valuer who determined thevalue at Rs. 31,591 of the said ornamentsunder dispute. As per the directions of theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) inthe first round, the assessee is, therefore,entitled to relief of the amount equivalentto the difference between Rs. 13,56,000and Rs. 31,591. The Assessing Officer is,therefore, directed to allow the relief of Rs.13,24,409 in the hands of the threebrothers equally for the three appealsbefore us." 12. When the direction of the Commissionerof Income-tax (Appeals) in the point of firstround was limited for valuing the jewellerywhich was available to the Assessing Officerat the time of original assessment made onMarch 27, 1991, and when the jewellerywhich was found in the locker of Smt.Radha Devi was not the subject-matter ofthe original assessment and there was nodirection of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of the jewelleryfound in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi.The Assessing Officer has committed error,in fresh assessment, in taxing the jewellerywhich was not the subject-matter of theoriginal assessment. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the orderof the Tribunal. In the result, the appealstands dismissed.” 4.In view of the above, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 5.The appeals stand dismissed. 6.A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/12-13