9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner. 2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263. 3. Merger of original assessment order with appellate proceedings. 4. Revival of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 5. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to cancel the order passed by the IAC (Assessment) under section 263. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a challenge to the validity of the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner. The authorized counsel of the assessee contended that the actions of the IAC (Assessment) did not constitute an order, thus the Commissioner had no authority to cancel it. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that a regular order was indeed passed by the IAC (Assessment), allowing the Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction under section 263 based on the circumstances at the time. 2. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 was a key issue in the appeal. The authorized counsel argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to act under section 263 since the order in question was passed by the IAC (Assessment) and not the ITO. The Tribunal upheld this argument, emphasizing that the provisions of section 263, prior to the amendment, did not allow the Commissioner to revise an order passed by an IAC (Assessment), thereby ruling the Commissioner's order as without jurisdiction. 3. The issue of merger of the original assessment order with appellate proceedings was raised during the appeal. The authorized counsel contended that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to act under section 263 was ousted due to the merger of the original assessment order with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the theory of merger did not apply in this case as the penalty proceedings were not part of any appeal before a higher authority. 4. Another issue raised was the revival of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) after becoming time-barred. The authorized counsel argued that the Commissioner had no authority to revive the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's decision that when a penalty order has to be passed as per directions of a higher authority, the limitation provisions do not apply. 5. The final issue addressed was the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to cancel the order passed by the IAC (Assessment) under section 263. The Tribunal reiterated that the provisions prior to the amendment did not grant the Commissioner the authority to revise an order passed by an IAC (Assessment), ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal based on this contention. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the fifth contention raised by the authorized counsel of the assessee, highlighting the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 to revise an order passed by the IAC (Assessment) in this case.
|
