Dr. Sahib Ram Giri v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.41/2007 Dr. Sahib Ram Giri Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, SriGanganagar. Date of judgment : 10[th] April, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Suresh Ojha for the appellant. ________ Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order ofthe Tribunal dated 18[th] August, 2006. The appealrelates to assessment year 1994-95 whereas the orderof the Tribunal is common for appeals arising out ofassessment years 1994-95 to 1999-2000. That appealshave been decided jointly. According to the assessee, he has filed returnon 2.4.1996 for the assessment year 1994-95 declaringan amount of Rs.46,530/- as texable income. The ITOdid not accept the return to be valid on the ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under theStatute. The notice under Section 147 was issued to theassessee and in response to which again return was filedon 12.6.2000 declaring the same income. The assessee had demanded the reasons forreopening which were not supplied by the ITO. Thereasons were supplied to the assessee only when theproceedings were pending before the CIT (A) in appeal. The assessee's clear contention was thatreasons had not been recorded before the issuance ofthe notice. The fact about the request made by theassessee about the reasons having not been recordedbefore issuing notice under Section 148 has beennoticed. However, while the Tribunal has recorded thatthe assessment for the years 1996-97 and 1999-2000were reopened by issuing separate notice after recordingseparate reasons, no such finding was recorded inrespect of recording of the reasons for reopening theassessment year 1994-95. Whether the reasons wererecorded in fact before the issuance of the notice. The Tribunal merely found that the reasons were supplied tothe assessee. Since objections to validity of notice issuedunder Section 148 had not been decided by theAssessing Officer and, therefore, the appeals filed by theassessee were allowed and the cases were sent back tothe assessing officer for fresh decision. The otherobjections that A.O. had not passed reasoned order wasalso upheld. The Assessing Officer was directed to decidethe assessee's objections by passing speaking ordersand, thereafter, if it so required, he may proceed toframe the re-assessment orders as per law. TheAssessing Officer was further directed not to repeat thesame assessment orders and to pass reasoned orders.Thus, objection to assuming jurisdiction under Section148 is to be decided by the first authority. In case theobjections of the assessee are over ruled by reasonedorder, he is then to proceed further and to pass freshassessment orders in accordance with law also by an speaking order. In the process finding already recordedby the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (A) in any mannerwere all set aside as it was implicit when directions wereissued not to repeat the assessment order as it is but toframe fresh assessment order. In these circumstances, we are of the opinionthat no substantial question of law for consideration inthis appeal arises at all at this stage. The assessee's further grievance is that sincehe lodged a complaint against the Assessing Officer hismatter may not be decided by same Assessing Officer,but be decided by some other independent officer. Undoubtedly, the facts about the filing of acomplaint against the Assessing Officer has beennoticed by the Tribunal. Apparently, in thesecircumstances, it will be appropriate for assessee toapproach to competent authority exercising power toassign jurisdiction by transfer the cases invitingattention of the competent authority to the aforesaid In these circumstances, we are of the opinionthat no substantial question of law for consideration inthis appeal arises at all at this stage. The assessee's further grievance is that sincehe lodged a complaint against the Assessing Officer hismatter may not be decided by same Assessing Officer,but be decided by some other independent officer. Undoubtedly, the facts about the filing of acomplaint against the Assessing Officer has beennoticed by the Tribunal. Apparently, in thesecircumstances, it will be appropriate for assessee toapproach to competent authority exercising power toassign jurisdiction by transfer the cases invitingattention of the competent authority to the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal and request the competentauthority to pass appropriate orders. If any suchapplication is made, he shall pass appropriate orderconsidering well known maxim that justice may not only be done but also seen to have been done. Subject to aforesaid observations, the appealis dismissed. , J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/