1982 (3) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of merger in income tax proceedings.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after an appellate order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Proceedings:
The central question was whether the Income-tax Officer's (ITO) orders had merged with the orders of the AAC, thus affecting the CIT's jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court examined the meaning and scope of the doctrine of merger and its applicability to the facts of the cases. The court referenced previous decisions, including CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh and Alok Paper Industries v. CIT, which appeared to have taken contrary views. The court clarified that the doctrine of merger applies depending on whether the decision of the ITO on a particular point was the subject-matter of appeal before the AAC. If the AAC did not consider a particular point, the ITO's decision on that point remains untouched, and the doctrine of merger does not apply.

2. Jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263:
The court addressed whether the CIT could revise the ITO's orders under section 263 after the AAC had made an appellate order. The court held that the CIT's revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is available only over matters not considered and decided by the AAC. The court noted that if the AAC did not consider certain items in the appeal, the ITO's order on those items does not merge with the AAC's order, allowing the CIT to exercise revisional jurisdiction over those items. The court referenced the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. and State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., which supported this view.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal was incorrect in holding that the entire assessment orders of the ITO had merged in the order of the AAC irrespective of the points urged by the parties or decided by the AAC. Consequently, the CIT was competent to revise those orders under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of the points not considered and decided by the AAC. The reference was answered accordingly, with parties bearing their own costs.