M/S ROAD MASTER vs. COMM.OF. INCOME TAX

ITA No. 147 of 1999 Date of Decision:-08.01.2015 M/s Road Masters Industries of India Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura

M/s Road Masters Industries of India Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura

Revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1981- 82 stands allowed partly on merits and partly for statistics in the above terms.” In respect of assessment year 1982-83 the appeal was also partly allowed after giving the following findings:- “10. The next grievance of the revenue is about the claim of bad debt which has been allowed by the learned First Appellate Authority. While deciding assessee’s ground No.13 before him, he has discussed the issue in para 9 of the impugned order. A perusal of the details in para 9 of the order reveal that while the accounting period of the assessee in relation to assessment year under appeal ended on 30.8.1981, most of the bills have been made in 1974, 1976, others are of year 1979 as also of 14.6.1980. On this also we will set aside the impugned order and restore the same to the file of the learned First Appellate Authority for VIJAY ASIJA 2015.01.14 13:24 integrity of this document -5- bringing on record the material with which the assessee supports its case. The assessee and the Assessing Officer shall be heard and a speaking order passed.” After the aforesaid order was passed by the Tribunal, the learned Assessing Officer passed a consequential order giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal on 10.10.1991. Still further the assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the order of Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 17.3.1992 holding that once the findings of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) have been set aside by the Tribunal, the only surviving order is that of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, he is justified in reviving the demand against the assessee. However, after re- hearing, another order was passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) on 14.9.1994 and returned the following findings :- “3. 3. I have gone through the facts of the case and the order of my learned predecessor. He has discussed case of each bad debt separately in his order and all the details were given. It is, however, seen that mainly all the bad debts under consideration had not really become bad during assessment year 1982-83. For example in the case of M/s Kartarpur Cycle Home, M/s Azad Cycle Works, M/s Ram Dayal Ved Parkash and M/s Daud H. AGA and Sons action for recovery of VIJAY ASIJA 2015.01.14 13:24 integrity of this document -6- bad debts was still being taken by the appellant. In addition to this no findings in terms of Section 36(2) has been recorded at any stage. It will be fair and just in the circumstances to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and enquires in the case of each bad debt and for recovery whether conditions laid down in Section 36(2) are fulfilled. Assessing Officer is directed to give opportunity to the appellant before arriving at his conclusion in this matter.” It is thereafter, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal, which has since been dismissed vide order dated 31.5.1999 against which order, the present appeals have been preferred. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer was free in these cases to revive the demand in relation to the issue, which were restored to the file of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as the relief to the assessee stands withdrawn till the issue not decided by the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) afresh. In these circumstances, the assessee filed the present appeal raising the above mentioned substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court. We have gone through the record and find that none of the substantial question of law arises for consideration. After the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter remitted back to the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), the VIJAY ASIJA 2015.01.14 13:24 integrity of this document -7- parties are before the First Appellate Court against the order of assessment finalized by the Assessing Officer. Such order of assessment finalized by the Assessing Officer, subject to such modification as has been ordered by the Tribunal, is a final and operative order till such time the same is set aside in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Mere fact that the appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) after the orders of the Tribunal does not oust the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate recovery proceedings on the basis of the order passed by it. However, such recovery proceedings shall be subject to final decision in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or thereafter. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer would be deemed to be final till such time the same are set aside in appeal. In view thereof, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration; hence, the appeals are dismissed.