9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 291 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - claim of deduction u/s 80-I - Tribunal holds that the issue of claim of deduction under Section 80-I including determination of ratio of captive power plant stands merged with the earlier order of the Tribunal. It is in these circumstances that a simple computation exercise would not have enabled the Assessing Officer to give a go-bye or by-pass the binding order of the Tribunal and it has refused to uphold the revisional exercise - Held that - Looked at from this angle we do not see how the Revenue can submit before us that the present Appeal raises substantial question of law. A mixed issue and whether the exercise of power under Section 263 was warranted in the light of the limited direction of the Tribunal has alone been considered in the impugned order. Such an exercise carried out by the Tribunal is a mixed one. The jurisdiction under Section 263 of the I. T. Act was not available to be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. That is how the Tribunal interfered with it and refused to uphold it. Such an order of the Tribunal is neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Hence we are not in agreement with Mr. Suresh Kumar that this Appeal raises substantial question of law.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding revisional powers. 2. Assessment of the exercise of power under Section 263 by the Commissioner. 3. Tribunal's role in ensuring compliance with its orders and limitations of revisional jurisdiction. 4. Consideration of whether the Appeal raises substantial questions of law. Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding revisional powers: The judgment discusses the Commissioner's power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act to revise orders prejudicial to revenue. The provision allows the Commissioner to call for and examine records, conduct an independent enquiry, and pass orders modifying assessments if necessary. The judgment emphasizes that the revisional powers must be exercised only when specific preconditions are met, as outlined in the statute. It clarifies that the Commissioner's authority is limited to rectifying orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Issue 2: Assessment of the exercise of power under Section 263 by the Commissioner: The judgment scrutinizes a case where the Commissioner's exercise of power under Section 263 was challenged. It highlights a specific instance where the Commissioner's order attempted to override a binding order and direction of the Tribunal. The Commissioner's actions were deemed excessive as they went beyond rectifying the computation of a deduction allowed by the Tribunal. The judgment points out that the Commissioner's attempt to dispute the deduction itself, rather than the computation, exceeded the jurisdiction granted under Section 263. Issue 3: Tribunal's role in ensuring compliance with its orders and limitations of revisional jurisdiction: The judgment underscores the Tribunal's responsibility to ensure compliance with its orders and limitations of revisional jurisdiction. It notes that the Tribunal refused to uphold the Commissioner's exercise of powers under Section 263 because it could render the Tribunal's order ineffective. The Tribunal expected the Assessing Officer to perform a limited computation exercise as directed, without reopening the claim of deduction under Section 80-I. The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction and determination of ratios had already been settled in its earlier order. Issue 4: Consideration of whether the Appeal raises substantial questions of law: The judgment concludes that the Appeal does not raise substantial questions of law. It asserts that the Tribunal's decision to refuse to uphold the revisional exercise was not erroneous or perverse. The Tribunal's intervention was deemed necessary to prevent the revisional jurisdiction from being misused to circumvent its binding orders. The judgment clarifies that the Tribunal's decision was based on a mixed issue and was justified in the given circumstances. In summary, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the assessment of the Commissioner's exercise of power under this section, the Tribunal's role in ensuring compliance with its orders, and the consideration of whether the Appeal raises substantial questions of law. It emphasizes the need for the revisional powers to be exercised within the statutory framework and highlights the importance of upholding the Tribunal's orders while preventing misuse of revisional jurisdiction.
|
