Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, vs. Smt. K. Pramila

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 72 / 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota. ----Appellant Versus Shri Prabhu Lal Bairagi, Vill. Bevardia, Dabi, Distt. Bundi. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 569 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota. ----Appellant Versus Shri Prabhu Lal Bairagi, Vill. Bevardia, Dabi, Distt. Bundi. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 22/05/2017 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 2. This Court while admitting the appeal No.72/2008 on 05.09.2008 has framed the following substantial question of law:

(2 of 3) [ITA-72/2008]

“Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.19,32,000/- which was made in compliance of the directions without which relief was not legally allowable?” 2.1. This Court while admitting the appeal No.569/2011 on 08.11.2016 has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in affirming the order of the CIT(A) whereby Rs.34,97,052/- was allowed the benefit of telescoping?” 3. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Jhanwar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lal Chand Agarwal (2003) 259 ITR 0497 wherein this court in para 10 to 12 has observed as under: “10 From the above directions, it is crystal clear that the directions were limited on making fresh assessment or to give effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer while making the fresh assessment has gone beyond the directions given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and had valued the jewellery which was seized by the Customs authority from the bank locker of Smt. Radha Devi, the mother of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the second round has confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer without realising the fact that the direction in the first round of proceeding was limited. 11 In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal after quoting the direction in para. 10 and para. 11, of its order has observed as under : "Since the directions read with the relevant observations were quite specific, it was not

(3 of 3) [ITA-72/2008]

appropriate on the part of the Assessing Officer to go beyond the scope of the directions. The learned Assessing Officer got the valuation of the ornaments done by the approved valuer who determined the value at Rs. 31,591 of the said ornaments under dispute. As per the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the first round, the assessee is, therefore, entitled to relief of the amount equivalent to the difference between Rs. 13,56,000 and Rs. 31,591. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to allow the relief of Rs. 13,24,409 in the hands of the three brothers equally for the three appeals before us." 12. When the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the point of first round was limited for valuing the jewellery which was available to the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment made on March 27, 1991, and when the jewellery which was found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi was not the subject-matter of the original assessment and there was no direction of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) in respect of the jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi. The Assessing Officer has committed error, in fresh assessment, in taxing the jewellery which was not the subject-matter of the original assessment. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.” 4. In view of the above, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 5. The appeals stand dismissed. 6. A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/12-13