9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explain an investment of Rs. 20,000 in the constructions and Rs. 24,000 in the purchase of oil tanker. the assessee explained to the ITO that it had claimed depreciation of Rs. 53,806 for the year under appeal and the investment of Rs. 44,000 stood explained out of the amount of depreciation. Then the CIT issued a notice under s. 263 calling upon the assessee to explain why the order of the ITO s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITO and directed him to a make a fresh assessment after making necessary enquiries. Aggrieve, the assessee has come up in appeal to the Tribunal. We have heard Shri Goyal, ld. counsel for the assessee and Shri Sing, ld. Departmental Represenative. Shri Goyal urges, whereas t he CIT issued a notice under s. 263 on 28th Feb., 1983, the appeal against the order of the ITO was decided by the AAC hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee failed to explain the investment of Rs. 44,000. his argument is that in view of the power of enhancement, the AAC would be deemed to have been satisfied with regard to the investment of Rs. 44,000 though this question was not specifically before him at the time of appeal. He, therefore, argues that the entire order of the ITO merged into the order of the CIT and the Revenue is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). It held that there was no merit in the Revenue s argument that unless the AAC had as a matter of fact, exercised his power of enhancement on issue decided by the ITO in the assessee s favour, the ITO s order on those issues would stand giving the CIT jurisdiction under s. 263 to revise that part of the order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
