1977 (6) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of merger.
3. Validity of the Commissioner's revision order.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner:
The primary contention of the assessee was that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner (AAC) because the said order had already been appealed before the Agrl. I.T. Appellate Tribunal. The court examined the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. I.T. Act, 1955, particularly Section 34, which grants the Commissioner the power of revision. The court noted that the Commissioner could revise any order made by a subordinate authority, provided the restrictions under sub-s. (2) of s. 34 did not apply. In this case, the restrictions under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of sub-s. (2) of s. 34 were not applicable. Therefore, the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise the order of the AAC.

2. Applicability of the doctrine of merger:
The assessee argued that the order of the AAC had merged with the order of the Appellate Tribunal, thus precluding the Commissioner from revising it. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the doctrine of merger, emphasizing that it is not a rigid doctrine and its application depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order and the scope of the statutory provisions. The court concluded that the doctrine of merger would apply only to matters decided by the Tribunal. Since the specific matter revised by the Commissioner was not addressed by the Tribunal, the doctrine of merger did not preclude the Commissioner's revision.

3. Validity of the Commissioner's revision order:
The court upheld the validity of the Commissioner's revision order, stating that the Commissioner had acted within his powers as provided by s. 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. I.T. Act, 1955. The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the assessee and affirmed the Commissioner's order, restoring the original order of the Agrl. ITO dated September 19, 1971, regarding the development allowance.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to costs. The court confirmed that the Commissioner had the authority to revise the AAC's order and that the doctrine of merger did not apply to the aspects not decided by the Tribunal.