2001 PLP 187 (PTD)

Nemo for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income‑tax Officer could make additions in respect of sources of income which were not considered by him in the original assessment proceedings?" The relevant assessment years are assessment years 1970‑71, 1971‑72 and 1972‑

73. None appears for the assessee. The matter was on board from time to time and on every occasion, the case was adjourned to enable the assessee to appear and argue the case if he is interested in pursuing the same. Despite that, none appeared. We have heard Mr. R.V. Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue, who submitted that in this case the entire assessment having been set aside with a direction to make fresh assessments de novo, the Income‑tax Officer has the same powers to make assessments as he had when making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. He pointed out the operative part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the statement of the case which reads as follows: "The Income‑tax Officer may, however, make any other enquiries that he deems fit for completing the assessment. The assessments for all the three years are set aside to be made de novo and for statistical purpose the appeals are allowed." He, therefore, submits that the entire assessment having been set aside, it was open to the Income‑tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after making due enquiries, which the Income‑tax Officer in the instant case has done. He further submits that it is clear from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the entire assessments were set aside with a direction as to make assessments de novo. He, therefore, submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the answer to the question is self‑evident and, accordingly, it should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. We have carefully considered the submissions of Mr. Deasi. There is no dispute about the fact that the entire assessments in this case, were set, aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with a direction to make assessments de novo after making such other enquiries as may be deemed necessary for that purpose: That being so, the Income‑tax Officer has the same powers in making the fresh assessments as he had originally when making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The scope and ambit of the enquiry for assessment is in no way restricted in such a case. In the instant case, the entire assessments had been set aside by the first appellate authority with a direction to make fresh assessments de novo after making necessary enquiries. The Income‑tax Officer acted accordingly and made the fresh assessment under section 143(3) of the Act having regard to the material available with him. There is no infirmity in this action of the Income‑tax Officer. However, in view of the fact that the assessee, at whose instance this reference is made, is absent, we do not propose to answer the question referred to us. This reference is, therefore, returned unanswered. M.B.A./95/FC Order accordingly.