RITZ LIMITED Vs. VYAS D D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Arts. 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner company (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") has challenged the legality and validity of the order of the ITAT dt. 7th Dec., 1983, passed on the assessee's application dt. 6th May, 1983 in the undermentioned circumstances.

(2.) THE reassessments of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1965 66 to 1967 68 and 1969 70 and 1970 71 were completed under ss. 148/143(3)/144B of the IT Act, 1961. The reassessments were challenged, inter alia, on the ground that they were made beyond the time limit prescribed for their completion. The Commissioner(A) rejected the challenge and held that the reassessments were not barred by limitation. Observing that certain procedural irregularities were committed while making the reassessments, however, the Commissioner(A) set aside the assessments directing the ITO to make fresh assessments after following the procedure according to law. The order of the Commissioner(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dt. 18th Oct., 1982. The effect of the Tribunal's order was that the validity of the reopening of the assessments under S. 148/147(a) was upheld. The reassessments were held to have been completed within time. However, the order of the Commisssioner(A) to the extent that there were certain procedural lapses in completing the assessments and, therefore, the assessments required to be made afresh according to law was upheld. The assessee filed reference applications under S. 256(1) suggesting as many as three questions of law. But the Tribunal referred to this Court one question of law only, viz.:

(3.) IT is submitted by Shri Rajgopal, learned counsel for the assessee, that the Tribunal has the power to grant stay of the reassessment proceedings until the reference before this Court was disposed of. For this purpose, Shri Rajgopal strongly relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Bansidhar & Sons (1986) 50 CTR (SC) 250 : (1986) 157 ITR 665 (SC) : TC8R.1466. Though the said decision was in the context of the power to stay the demand, it was pointed out that the ratio of the decision was wide. The Tribunal was held to have inherent and all incidental powers for making the appeal effective even during the pendency of reference before the High Court. He referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi (1969) 71 ITR 815 (SC) : TC8R.1460 to show that the powers conferred by s. 254 on the Tribunal were of the widest possible amplitude and by necessary implication they must carry with them all powers and duties incidential and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective. According to Shri Rajgopal, in CIT vs. Bansidhar and Sons (supra), the Supreme Court merely enlarged the principle enunciated by it in ITO vs. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi (supra) to the extent that it held that whatever powers the Tribunal had during the pendency of appeal before it, it continued to have even after the disposal of appeal in case reference therefrom was pending before the High Court.