9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against disallowance of loss claimed on chitty account. - Interpretation of section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding revision of orders. - Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise orders when an order is under appeal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an assessment order for the year 1986-87, where the appellant claimed a deduction of loss on a chitty account. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed loss as the chitties were terminated before the relevant year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating that the loss should have been claimed in the year it accrued. Subsequently, the appellant filed a revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act challenging the order. The Commissioner of Income-tax, in the impugned order, rejected the revision citing that the assessment order had merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellant argued that since the loss was not part of the assessment order for the year 1985-86, it could not be considered as the subject of an appeal against that order. The court referred to the case law to determine the concept of merger of orders in such situations. The court analyzed section 264(4) of the Act, which prohibits the revision of orders under appeal. It deliberated on whether an order not addressing the claimed loss could be considered the subject of an appeal. The court concluded that since there was no order regarding the claimed loss in the chitty account for the relevant year, the Commissioner of Income-tax erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under section 264 based on the appeal status of the 1985-86 assessment order. As a result of the analysis, the court allowed the writ appeal, quashed the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, and remanded the case for a fresh order under section 264, directing compliance with the law.
|
