2005 (1) TMI 64 - HC - Income Tax

Order of the Commissioner passed u/s 263 jurisdiction - Assessing Officer on March 14, 1989, rectified his original assessment order dated March 13, 1987, under section 154 in relation to the applicability of section 80HHC and claiming benefit of one item namely-extra shift allowance on transformers. - Then Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under section 263 set aside the original order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer on March 13, 1987 - Once the original order stands rectified then it loses its identity at least to the extent it stood rectified. In such circumstances, the Commissioner should have invoked his suo motu powers under section 263 of the Act against the subsequent rectified order dated March 14, 1989, if he was of the view that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Hence, Tribunal made no mistake in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 which had the effect of setting aside the assessment order dated March 13, 1987, is without jurisdiction.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding rectification of assessment orders.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed the issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case where an assessment order was rectified by the Assessing Officer after the Commissioner had set it aside. The case involved an assessment order passed for the assessment year 1984-85 under section 143(3) of the Act, which was rectified by the Assessing Officer under section 154 in relation to the applicability of section 80HHC and claiming benefit of extra shift allowance on transformers. Subsequently, the Commissioner, exercising powers under section 263, set aside the original assessment order, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, prompting the Revenue to raise a question regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in setting aside the original assessment order.

The High Court noted that at the time the Commissioner exercised his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act, the original assessment order had already been rectified by the Assessing Officer. The Court emphasized that once an order is rectified, it loses its identity to the extent it was rectified. Therefore, the Commissioner should have invoked his powers under section 263 against the subsequent rectified order if he believed it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Court held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the original assessment order that had already been rectified by the Assessing Officer, and he should have targeted the rectified order instead.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Commissioner's order under section 263, which set aside the assessment order dated March 13, 1987, was without jurisdiction. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, highlighting the importance of the timing and scope of the Commissioner's exercise of revisional powers under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment clarified the procedural requirements and limitations on the Commissioner's jurisdiction in such matters, ensuring a fair and lawful application of the tax laws.