1985 (7) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Interpretation of circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Act.
3. Application for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under articles 133 and 134A of the Constitution.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a challenge to the order of the Commissioner dismissing a revision petition filed by the assessee under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. The High Court addressed the issue of whether the Commissioner could entertain the revision petition after the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had merged with the order of the Tribunal. The Full Bench opined that the Commissioner could not entertain the revision petition in such circumstances. The Court held that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner merged with the Tribunal's order, precluding the Commissioner from revising it.

2. The High Court examined the interpretation of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Act. The respondent contended that the circular bound the Commissioner to examine the revision petition on merits, despite the opinion of the Full Bench. However, the Court held that the circular could not override the legal principle that the Commissioner could not revise an order that had merged with the Tribunal's order. The Court emphasized that authorities must act in accordance with established legal principles, not contrary circulars.

3. The Court also addressed the application for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under articles 133 and 134A of the Constitution. The respondent sought the certificate based on the substantial questions of law raised in the case, particularly regarding the theory of merger, the scope of section 264 of the Income-tax Act, and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. The Court granted the certificate, acknowledging the general importance of the legal issues involved and the need for clarification by the Supreme Court.

Overall, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order of the Commissioner and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding legal principles over conflicting circulars and granted a certificate of fitness for the respondent to appeal to the Supreme Court based on the substantial questions of law raised in the case.