9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Commissioner u/s 263 to revise assessment order under Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: The case involved a question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 263 to revise an assessment order. The assessee, an individual, had failed to comply with advance tax payment requirements, leading to interest payable under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner assumed jurisdiction under section 263 and levied interest on the assessee. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer's order had merged with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, making it not revisable by the Commissioner. The High Court referred to the decision in CIT v. P. Muncherji and Co. [1987] 167 ITR 671, where it was held that the Income-tax Officer's order merges with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order on all points appealable or modifiable by the latter. The Court also discussed precedents like CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala [1953] 23 ITR 412 (Bom) and CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC) to support this view. Contrary to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's view in CIT v. K. L. Rajput [1987] 164 ITR 197, the Bombay High Court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer's order merges entirely with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court's stance in Addl. CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd [1988] 169 ITR 533 was also noted, where the Court refrained from deciding a similar issue due to the matter becoming academic. Despite a request for a larger Bench, the High Court declined, citing the detailed judgment in P. Muncherji's case [1987] 167 ITR 671 as the basis for its decision. The Court upheld the view that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the original assessment order, as it had merged with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The question referred was answered in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
