9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as "the Act") for late submission of the return for the period 1961-62. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the claim for deductions as well as penalty by order dated 23rd January, 1967 and reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 3,000. The department alone filed a revision to the Board of Revenue under sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act on 3rd May, 1968. The assessee did not prefer any revision as provided in sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act and accepted the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). However, in the revision filed by the department before the Board of Revenue, the assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the imposition of penalty even to the extent of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of section 14 akin to Order 41, rule 22, C.P.C., nor is there any provision enabling exercise of suo motu powers of revision by the Board. The only question, therefore, is whether in the department's revision preferred under section 14(1) of the Act it was permissible for the Board of Revenue to make an order prejudicial to the Revenue who had preferred the revision. Section 14(1) of the Act reads as under: "14. Revisions.-(1) The Board of Revenue may on being moved by any officer authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner by any general or special order call for and examine the records of any proceedings not being proceedings under the provisos to sub-section (3) of section 11 or an order of the Commissioner under section 12B or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 14 cannot be construed to confer the wide power of revision as suggested by learned counsel for the assessee. The context in which the expression "such order as it thinks fit" occurs in subsection (1), clearly confines the exercise of that power to the scope of the revision. It merely means that any order which the authority thinks fit to make within the scope of the revision preferred by the department may be made. The absence of any specific provision for filing a cross-objection or a provision conferring suo motu powers of revision is a clear indication that the revisional power under subsection (1) is restricted notwithstanding the further limitation prescribed in subsection (2). This power of revision under sub-section (1) is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of section 14 involved for interpretation in this matter. From the above discussion it follows that the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue misconstrued sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act to hold that a cross-objection filed in the department's revision preferred thereunder was tenable for granting relief to the assessee who had failed to avail the right of revision available to it under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The order dated 1st January, 1973 passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in the special appeal is set aside and that of the Single Bench of the Board of Revenue dated 16th September, 1970 is restored. No costs. Petition allowed. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
