(1.) THIS appeal, preferred by the assessed, is directed against order dated 21 -3 -2002, passed by the CIT, Delhi (Central) -HI, New Delhi, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), modifying the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act.
(2.) RELEVANT facts giving rise to this appeal are that assessed filed return for assessment year 1997 -98 at an income of Rs. 63,190 and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 1,26,520 by the assessing officer. After going through the record the learned CIT was of the view that assessment completed by the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he issued notice under section 263 of the Act to the assessed pointing out different errors committed by the assessing officer in respect of different disallowances, etc. and after considering the reply submitted by the assessed the CIT passed impugned order by which he has recomputed the income of the assessed to the extent of Rs. 63,92,000 making out different disallowances and additions. At the very outset the learned counsel referring to the impugned order passed by the learned CIT submitted that the learned CIT had recomputed deduction under section 80HHC of the Act and also made separate computation of total income by making disallowances and also making different additions on account of undisclosed investment in stock, etc. and directed the assessing officer to modify the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act and to issue demand notice and challan as well as penalty notice. The contention of the learned counsel ' is that learned CIT had not set aside the assessment order with direction to assessing officer to reframe the assessment order but he has already completed the assessment order and assessing officer was supposed to carry out the necessary direction and to issue demand notice and challan as per income computed by the learned CIT. The learned counsel submitted that different disallowances and additions made by the learned CIT are being challenged through different grounds of appeal and he started arguing the matter as per grounds raised in the grounds of appeal. We are disposing of the grounds accordingly as per arguments of the learned counsel as well as the learned departmental Representative.
(3.) IN ground of appeal No. 1 the assessed has challenged the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the assessed made arguments on the issue of jurisdiction while dealing with specific grounds of appeal. It is, Therefore, not necessary for us to advert to the arguments on this aspect of the matter at this stage.