- (1.) ALL these four applications under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, are in respect of the same assessee.
(2.) WE have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the CIT. It Applications Nos. 152 and 154 of 1997, are of asst. yrs. 1984 85 and 1985 86 and are directed against a common order dt. 18th Jan., 1996, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A", New Delhi, in ItA Nos. 5693 and 5694/Del of 1990. The following question is stated to be of law and to arise out of the Tribunal's order : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was carried in law in upholding the order of the CIt(A), quashing the reframed assessment under ss. 143(3) and 263 of the It Act ?"
(3.) THE facts are that the assessments for the aforesaid two years were made by the AO. Subsequently, the CIT noticed that certain deposits in the name of various persons had not been investigated by the AO. He therefore, found that the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, by an order dt. 24th March, 1987, the CIT set aside the assessment orders and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment after proper enquiry. Thereafter, in compliance with the directions under S. 263 of the Act, the AO made a fresh assessment and brought to tax some additional amount. The assessee appealed against the assessments to the CIT(A) who found that after making of the said reassessment, the CIT's order under S. 263 of the Act had been set aside by the Tribunal. He, therefore, cancelled the assessment orders made in compliance with the order under S. 263 of the Act. Against the aforesaid orders, the CIT filed the aforesaid appeals, which were dismissed by the Tribunal.;