9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp;It filed its return for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring its income at Rs. 26,66,355. The order of assessment was completed on or about March 10, 1995 under Section 143(3) of the Act opining that the assessable income as against the assessee was Rs. 35,40,414. The Commissioner of Income-tax invoked its jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by setting aside the order of assessment excluding certain amounts towards transport receipts to the extent of a sum of Rs. 2762982 and interest amounting to Rs. 141878 from the assessee's total income in the light of the provisions of Section 80HHC and Section 80-I of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to make a fresh order of assessment. 3. Appeal was preferred thereagainst b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was Justified in holding that the issue of excess deduction under section 80HH & 80 I contained in the order under section 143 (3) was merged with the order under section 154 particularly when no rectification under section 154 was made in this regard. 3. Whether the view taken by the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the Assessing Officer did not consider the issue of excess deductions under section 80HH and 80-I f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment." 8. The scope and ambit of a proceeding for rectification of an order under section 154 and a proceeding for revision under section 263 are distinct and different. Order of rectification can be passed on certain contingencies. It does not confer a power of review. If an order of assessment is rectified by Assessing Officer in terms of section 154 of the Act, the same itself may be a subject matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on the parties, and the respondent could not question it in any way. As a matter of fact the Commissioner of Income-tax had made an application for a reference, which application was subsequently withdrawn. The Judicial Commissioner was not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal and we do not think that, in the circumstances of this case, it was open to him to say that the order of the Tribunal was wrong and, therefore there was no injustice in disregarding that order. As we have said earlier such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice." 10. This principle has been laid down also in Dharam Chand Jain v. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 1433 stating (page 1436) : "The State Government, being a sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the hands of the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, the same would not mean that revisional authority shall be denuded of exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, would run counter to the scheme of the Act. 13. The Tribunal relied on Vippy Solvex Products Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 587 (MP). Therein the question was determined in the light of the decision of this court in Smt. S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 49. The ratio of the said decision was not at all applicable. The High court, thus, committed a manifest error in relying on the said decision. In S.R. Venkataraman AIR 1979 SC 49, this court was concerned with an administrative order passed by a statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be held to have become bad in law only because an order of rectification was passed. No such hard and fast rule can, in our opinion, be laid down. Each case is required to be considered on its own facts. In a given situation, the High Court may be held to be entitled to set aside both orders and remit the matter for consideration of the matter afresh. But in our opinion, it would not be correct to contend that only because a proceeding for rectification was initiated subsequently, the revisional jurisdiction could not have been invoked under any circumstances whatsoever. If such a proceeding was initiated, in our opinion, the contesting parties could bring the same to the notice of the Commissioner so as to en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
