Decided on May 06,1994



R. D. AGRAWALA, J. M. : - (1.) BY this order we propose to dispose of four appeals and one cross-objection as it is convenient to do so. Out of these, while three appeals and the cross objection pertain to the asst. yr. 1982-83, one appeal is in respect of asst. yr. 1985-86.
(2.) The assessee before us is a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. In respect of the asst. yr. 1982-83 they filed return of income on 30th June, 1982, i.e., within time showing an income of Rs. 68,79,940. An interesting dispute between the Department and the assessee has arisen hereinafter itself inasmuch as while as per the assessee they filed only one revised return on the 7th Feb., 1986 showing an income of Rs. 53,28,234 about which there is no dispute whatsoever, as per the Department this is the second revised return and the assessee in fact filed a revised return on 12th Feb., 1985 showing a loss of Rs. 11,59,726. The intervening revised return showing loss (supra) assumes significance inasmuch as if no intervening return was filed by the assessee, assessment in respect of the asst. yr. 1982-83 as prescribed by S. 153(1)(a) of the IT Act should have been made before the 31st March, 1985, i.e., within two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. However, if as stated by the Department, loss returned was filed by the assessee before the expiry of the aforesaid period, viz., 31st March, 1985, limitation for the completion of the assessment would get extended by one year, i.e., upto 31st March, 1986 as envisaged by cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 153 of the IT Act. In the first even, the assessment order would be untenable in law while in the second situation devoid of any jurisdictional lapse, the assessment having been rendered on the 10th Feb., 1986. Before, however, we proceed to take up the appeals one by one, it appears relevant to state about their chronology and the background as to why there are three appeals and one cross objection for the same year, i.e., asst. yr. 1982-83.
(3.) ASSESSMENT was firstly rendered by the Assessing Officer on the 10th Feb., 1986 under S. 144 of the IT Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal which was disposed of by the learned CIT(A), Bhopal, vide order dt. 3rd July, 1986 as per which he did not approve of the ITOs action in completing the assessment ex parte on the 10th Feb., 1986 without waiting for the audit report. Finding the determination of the net income of the assessee at Rs. 75,00,000 by this ex parte assessment as unjustified the CIT(A) set aside the assessment with directions to the ITO "to complete it afresh in accordance with law after duly taking into account the material furnished by the appellant and after giving further opportunity". This resulted in another assessment order dt. 28th March, 1989 rendered under S. 143(3) of the Act against which the CIT(A) disposed of the assessees appeal vide order dt. 17th July, 1989. An order giving effect to the appellate order was passed by the CIT(A) on 21st Sept., 1989 against which the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, while ITA No. 931/Ind/90 has arisen as the assessees appeal against giving effect to order of the CIT(A), ITA Nos. 698 and 930/Ind/89 are the cross appeals against the regular assessment made afresh in respect of the asst. yr. 1982-83. Apart from this, the assessee also filed cross objection No. 6/Ind/90 against the Departments appeal for the asst. yr. 1982-83. The fifth case before us is the assessees appeal for the asst. yr. 1985-86.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.