9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability and computation of disallowance under Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Provision for obsolete stores and its verification. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue was whether the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise the order of the Income-tax Officer (IAC) when the order had already been appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee argued that the order of the IAC had merged with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), thereby precluding the Commissioner from revising it under Section 263. The assessee cited several judgments supporting this view, including J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala, and a Special Bench decision in Dwarkadas & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO. However, the department countered this argument by referring to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, which was interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G. V. Shah, ITO. The Calcutta High Court had also delivered judgments contrary to the assessee's position, including Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT, Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT, Premchand Sitanath Roy v. Addl. CIT, and Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. v. CIT. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the contention of the assessee should fail, emphasizing that the Calcutta High Court judgments supported the revenue's position. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had set aside the assessment in respect of two specific points and not the entire assessment, thus retaining jurisdiction under Section 263. 2. Applicability and computation of disallowance under Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Commissioner had issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the computation of the disallowance under Section 44C. The assessee contended that the applicability of Section 44C had already been disputed before the Commissioner (Appeals), and thus, the Commissioner could not revise the order. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had indeed considered the applicability of Section 44C but did not interfere with the amount disallowable. The Tribunal held that since the applicability of Section 44C was in dispute, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have considered the correctness of the calculation. Therefore, the order of the IAC on this point had merged with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise it under Section 263. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Commissioner's order in respect of the computation under Section 44C. 3. Provision for obsolete stores and its verification: The Commissioner had also questioned the provision for obsolete stores amounting to Rs. 5,15,762, which was debited to the profit and loss account. The assessee argued that this amount represented the cost of obsolete stores actually written off during the year. The Commissioner noted that the IAC had not verified the items written off, and a significant amount was involved. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT, which held that the Commissioner could regard an order as erroneous if the ITO failed to make necessary enquiries. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no occasion to consider this aspect, and hence, the IAC's order on this point had not merged with the appellate authority's order. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's direction to redo the assessment after verifying the details of the obsolete stores and providing the assessee with sufficient opportunity to present its case. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner's order regarding the computation under Section 44C but upheld the Commissioner's direction to reassess the provision for obsolete stores.
|
