M.N. SHAHID Vs. ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the cross objection filed by the assessee and the Miscellaneous petition filed for correction of the said error. The assessment order passed in the case of the assessee was sought to be re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said action of the Department was challenged by the assessee both on the ground of jurisdiction as well as on merits. The assessing authority over-ruling the objections passed the reassessment order. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appellate Commissioner set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority. Again after such remand, the assessing authority passed the assessment order which was again challenged by the assessee before the Appellate Commissioner who set aside the order on merits but did not go into the question of correctness of the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. The revenue preferred an appeal against the order of the appellate Commissioner, and the assessee also preferred cross objections in so far as his contention that the re-opening was bad. The appeal filed by the revenue came to be dismissed and the cross objection was also dismissed. Thereafter, the Miscellaneous petition was filed for recalling the order dismissing the cross objection and the said Miscellaneous petition came to be dismissed. It is against those orders the present appeal is filed. The order of re-assessment passed has been set aside which has attained finality. It has been set aside on merits. The assessee wanted the said order to be set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction also which is not found favour with the authorities. It is in respect of the said portion of the order, the present appeal is filed. As the reassessment order has been set aside on merits and it has attained finality, the appellant cannot be said to be an aggrieved person who is entitled to prefer an appeal merely on the ground that the ground of jurisdiction has been held against the assessee. Assuming it to be so, we reserve liberty to the assessee to challenge and urge the said ground if the department were to trouble the assessee in any other proceedings.