Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Rambilas Chandram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 September, 1984

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lal Chand Agarwal on 29 August, 2002

In the case of Rambilas Chandram v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 344, this court again considered the scope of fresh assessment after direction of the appellate authority. In this case the direction was given to make the fresh assessment after re-examining various factors involved and no limit was put on the assessment, therefore, this court held that the Income-tax Officer can re-examine and make the fresh assessment without any limitation and restrictions. The relevant observation of this court at page 352 reads as under :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Joshi And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 January, 1986

(l) Rambilas Chandram v. CIT . In this case, the Rajasthan High Court, following the decision of this court in Sanderson & Morgans [1973] 87 ITR 270, held that a firm was not dissolved on the death of a partner as there was an agreement that the death of a partner could not automatically dissolve the partnership if the surviving partners agreed to take the legal representative of the deceased partner in the place of the deceased in the business. The business of the firm continued uninterrupted and the accounts of the assessee were not closed. There was merely a change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of Section 187(2) of the Act and only one assessment could be made on the firm for the said assessment year.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Fundilal Rikhabchand on 12 October, 1993

No restrictions have been placed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the right of the Income-tax Officer restricting the assessment to the figure, which was determined in the earlier assessment order, which has been set aside. As a matter of fact, the said order is no longer in existence and the necessity to direct the Income-tax Officer to examine the whole case afresh makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed on the power of the Income-tax Officer to frame the assessment order afresh. The only restriction was that no adverse order could be made unless the taxpayer was given reasonable opportunity of being heard. This court in the case of Rambilas Chandram v. CIT [19861 156 ITR 344 has examined the point in dispute with regard to the power of the Income-tax Officer. In that case, the assessment framed by the Income-tax Officer was set aside in appeal with a direction that the Income-tax Officer should make assessment after giving proper opportunity to the assesses. The Income-tax Officer has made certain additions in the tiUi account and the a/si account which were not made in the original assessment and the books of account were rejected. The additions in the groundnut account which were made in the original assessment order were reduced in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and when the matter was taken before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was contended that the additions in the tilli account and the alsi account were not made in the original assessment order and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to make the additions. It was observed by this court that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has set aside the assessment order and sent the matter back to the Income-tax Officer for refraining the assessment after examining the various factors involved in detail giving an opportunity to the assessee before the additions are made and, therefore, this order of remand is without any restrictions and the Income-tax Officer could exercise all powers which he could otherwise exercise at the time of making the original assessment. On the basis of this decision and the operative part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we find that the assessment order in the present case has also been set aside fully and the Income-tax Officer was directed to examine the whole case afresh. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has not fettered the discretion of the Income-tax Officer while framing the assessment order and examining the whole case afresh. Had the matter been restricted only to providing the opportunity to the assessee for confronting the report of the income-tax inspector, then there was no necessity to direct the Income-tax Officer to examine the whole case afresh. The directions in the present case cannot be considered as restricted to the grounds of appeal, because, while passing an order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could set aside the entire assessment order for making the fresh assessment. The examination of the whole case afresh, therefore, is similar to the case of Rambilas Chandram [1985] 156 ITR 344 (Raj) referred to above and the further direction to follow the correct procedure in law as mentioned in the appellate order, i.e., no adverse order could be made unless the taxpayer was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, cannot be interpreted to mean that the addition beyond Rs. 5,000 cannot be made. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that in the fresh assessment proceedings on the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to enhance the assessment. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahindra And Company on 20 January, 1995

5. Mr. Bafna has relied on the decision of this court in the case of Rambilas Chandram v. CIT [19851 156 ITR 344 wherein it was observed that where a case is sent back to the Income-tax Officer without any restrictions, then the Income-tax Officer can make additions of such source of the income of the assessee in the first assessment, he can make such addition in the fresh order of assessment.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1