9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise an order under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Maintainability of a revision petition when an order has been the subject of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the petitioner, a public limited company involved in the manufacture and sale of cloth, challenging the assessment year 1975-76's income tax assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the petitioner's appeal against an addition related to non-compliance with cloth control obligations. However, the petitioner sought further relief regarding extra shift allowance for electrical machinery, incremental gratuity liability, and interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed revision petitions, questioning the Commissioner's rejection based on section 264(4)(c) of the Act, which prohibits revision when an order is the subject of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal. 2. The petitioner contended that since the issues of additional depreciation and incremental gratuity were not raised in the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the revision petition should be maintainable. However, the court cited section 264(4) of the Act, emphasizing that the Commissioner cannot revise an order if it has been the subject of an appeal. Referring to a precedent, the court highlighted that once an assessment order is appealed, the Commissioner's revisional power ceases until the appeal's conclusion. The judgment reiterated that revision and appeal are not concurrent remedies available to the assessee, affirming the first respondent's dismissal of the revision petition due to lack of jurisdiction. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the first respondent's decision to reject the revision petition based on the clear legal provisions outlined in the Income-tax Act. The judgment emphasized the finality of assessment orders subject to appeal and highlighted the non-concurrent nature of revision and appeal remedies available to taxpayers.
|
