- (1.) This order shall dispose of ITA No.143 and 166 of 2005, as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in both the appeals is identical. Further, an application was filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") before the Tribunal in ITA No.166 of 2005 which was declined on 15.2.2005. It was urged by the learned counsel for the parties that both the appeals can be disposed of by one order. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.143 of 2005.
(2.) Ita No.143 of 2005 has been preferred by the appellantassessee under section 260A of the Act against the order dated 29.9.2004, Annexure P.1 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' New Delhi (for brevity, "the Tribunal") in ITA No.2646/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1991-92, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the admitted factual position emerging from the material on record, the decision rendered by the Tribunal is a result of incorrect interpretation of the provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether in view of the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the proceedings under section 148/147 could be initiated after a period of four years even in a case where assessment under section 143(1)(a) had been made without authority of law for the relevant assessment year by the Assessing Officer? iii) Whether on a correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that proceedings initiated under Section 148/147 after a period of four years on an approval and sanction having been granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax were valid? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the decision rendered by this Hon'ble High Court, being the jurisdictional High Court, rendered in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Talkies, 1996 220 ITR 107 (P&H)? v) Whether the appellant being a joint owner of the agricultural land in equal share was liable to be taxed on the 50% of the commission amount alleged to have been received by him?
(3.) Briefly, the facts as available on the record of ITA No.143 of 2005 may be noticed. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee did not file his return. Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 22.2.1994 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee for the purpose of bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 73,132/- which he had received as interest from M/s Kevikon Agro Farming (P) Limited on the deposit of the sale consideration received on sale of his agricultural land. In response to this notice, the assessee filed his return on 19.3.1996. Intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 22.3.1996. The Assessing Officer issued another notice under section 148 of the Act on 17.3.1997 for the purpose of bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 2 lacs which the assessee received as commission from one C.P. Singh of Rama Finance Company. In response to this notice, the assessee did not file any return of income. Two notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued but there was no compliance by the assessee. The assessment was therefore completed under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 30.3.1999, Annexure P.3 by bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 2 lacs received as commission by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings. According to the assessee, pursuant to the first notice issued under section 148 of the Act, intimation was issued by the Assessing Officer and this constituted assessment and therefore in the light of specific provisions of section 151(1) of the Act, no notice could be issued under section 148 of the Act unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of such a notice. The assessment was sought to be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and thus the assessee pleaded that satisfaction of the Commissioner must be obtained. The CIT(A) vide order dated 19.3.2004, Annexure P.2, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that processing of return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act was not an assessment. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 29.9.2004, Annexure P.1, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In ITA No.163 of 2005, the assessee filed an application under section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal for rectification of the order dated 29.9.2004 which was declined vide order dated 15.2.2005 in the said petition. Hence the instant appeals by the assessee.;