9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involves a common question of law regarding the scope and interpretation of section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cloth, submitted necessary income returns for the assessment year 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment, and the appellant appealed against the addition in income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the appellant's contention and reduced the income tax liability. Subsequently, the appellant filed a revision application seeking further deductions related to depreciation and gratuity liability. The Commissioner rejected the revision application citing non-maintainability under section 264(4)(c). The key contention raised by the appellant was that since the revision issues were not part of the initial appeal before the Commissioner, they should have been considered separately. However, the respondents argued that section 264(4)(c) prohibits the revision of an order that has already been the subject of an appeal. The court analyzed the provisions of section 264(4)(c) and emphasized that once an order has been appealed, the Commissioner cannot revise it, regardless of whether all aspects of the order were challenged in the appeal. The court highlighted that the word "order" in this context refers to the entire order and not specific parts of it, thereby upholding the bar against revision in such cases. Furthermore, the judgment drew parallels between the prohibition in section 264(4)(c) and the principles of civil procedure, particularly the rule against multiplicity of litigation and the doctrine of res judicata. It explained that the appellant should have raised all grounds of defense or attack, including those related to depreciation and gratuity, in the initial appeal itself. By omitting these issues in the appeal, the appellant was precluded from raising them in a subsequent revision application. The court affirmed that the Commissioner rightly rejected the revision application under section 264(4)(c) and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of addressing all relevant issues in the initial appeal to avoid multiple litigations. In conclusion, the court upheld the rejection of the revision application, emphasizing the need to address all grounds of defense or attack in the initial appeal to prevent further litigation. The judgment highlighted the clear prohibition in section 264(4)(c) against revising orders that have already been appealed, underscoring the importance of comprehensive and thorough appeals to avoid subsequent revision applications.
|
