9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 264(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether an assessee can invoke revisional jurisdiction after filing an appeal against the order sought to be revised. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case was the interpretation of section 264(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which prohibits the Commissioner from revising any order under section 264 where the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the term "order" in this section should be construed as referring only to that part of the order which was made the subject matter of an appeal. The petitioner relied on the decision in CIT v. Shri Arbada Mills Limited, where it was held that the power of the Commissioner under section 263 extends to matters not considered in the appeal. The petitioner also cited the Gujarat High Court case of Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT to support their argument that the revision should be allowed for matters not part of the appeal. 2. The second issue revolved around whether an assessee can still assert a right to invoke revisional jurisdiction after having preferred an appeal against the order sought to be revised. The revenue contended that if an appeal had been filed against the order sought to be revised, the assessee would be debarred from invoking revisional jurisdiction. They cited previous court decisions to support their stance, emphasizing that the assessee must choose between the appellate forum and revisional forum, and cannot avail of both for the same order. The court held that the remedy under section 264 is not meant to supplement the appeal remedy, and the assessee must seek all remedies through the chosen forum. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the imposition of the bar under section 264(4)(c) does not deny the assessee's rights. The court emphasized that the power under section 264 is distinct from section 263, with the former safeguarding the revenue's interest and the latter protecting the assessee's interests. The court held that the assessee must make a choice between appealing and seeking revision, and cannot avail of both for the same order.
|
