By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
New Page 1
26 Reassessment : S. 147 of Income-tax
Act, 1961 : A.Ys. 1992-93 and 1993-94 : CIT(A) allowed deductions u/s.80HH
and u/s. 80I : Reopening of assessment by AO on the basis of subsequent
Supreme Court decision is not valid.
[CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries, 215 CTR 370
(Mad.)]
For the A.Ys. 1992-93 and 1993-94, the assessee’s claim
for deduction u/s.80HH and u/s.80I was disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
In appeal the CIT(A) allowed the claim. The Assessing Officer gave effect to
the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the claim. Subsequently, the Assessing
Officer reopened the assessment for disallowing the claim relying on the
subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v.
Venkateshwara Hatcheries (P) Ltd., 237 ITR 174 (SC). The Tribunal held
that the reopening of the assessment was not valid.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Madras High Court upheld
the decision of the Tribunal and held as under :
“(i) There is no dispute that the earlier CIT(A)’s
order has become final and also the AO passed the consequent orders in
giving effect to the said CIT(A)’s order. There was no further appeals by
the Revenue. Though the said CIT(A)’s order is erroneous in view of the
Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Venkateshwara Hatcheries
(P) Ltd., 237 ITR 174 (SC), the same has not been set aside by the
process known to law.
(ii) The Tribunal is correct in holding that the
Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s.147.
Unless and until the said order is set aside by the process known to law,
the said order is valid in law, as well as it binds on the lower
authorities. Hence, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to circumvent
the earlier order passed by the CIT(A) which had become final. Under such
circumstances, the Assessing Officer should not reopen the assessment and
seek to adjudicate on the issue which was already adjudicated by the
Appellate authority.
(iii) The Tribunal correctly decided the matter and the
reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence,
and there is no error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so
as to warrant interference.”
