2012 (11) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Revisionary powers under section 263 - conditions for exercise of revisionary powers Held that - It cannot be said that Commissioner lacks jurisdiction in invoking his revisional jurisdiction - order of the Commissioner may be wrong. But it does not necessarily mean that all wrong orders are situations invoking want of jurisdiction - Tribunal in its wisdom remanded the matter to the original authority and it is only after the assessing authority opines one way or other there may be scope for further development - appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner to invoke revisional powers under section 263.
2. Validity of remanding the case to the original Assessing Officer by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to invoke revisional powers under section 263. The appellant, a private limited company, contested the Tribunal's decision to remand the case to the original Assessing Officer after setting aside the Commissioner's order. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision. The appellant's counsel argued that if the Commissioner could not have invoked his revisional jurisdiction, then even the remand order by the Tribunal would not be sustainable. The counsel emphasized that the Commissioner's order was wrong as the assessment order was not erroneous, thus questioning the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

2. The High Court analyzed the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel and noted that not all wrong orders necessarily indicate a lack of jurisdiction. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer's view, which led the Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction, was now of academic importance as the matter had been remanded to the original authority by the Tribunal. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's remand order and concluded that there were no substantial questions of law decided wrongly by the Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no error in the order passed, and subsequently dismissed the appeal.