9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment by disallowing certain deductions claimed by the appellant on various grounds. Against the assessment order of the ITO, the assessee filed an appeal before the AAC who by an order made on 27th Oct., 1976, partly allowed the same. By the order of the AAC, both the Revenue and the assessee preferred second appeals before the Tribunal, Bangalore to the extent each one of them was aggrieved. However, on 9th May, 1977, the assessee withdrew its appeal before the Tribunal with liberty reserved to it to approach the CIT in a revision under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On 20th May, 1978, the Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on merits. 2. The assessee filed revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment's second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal preferred against another part of the same order where the subject-matter of the appellate and revisional proceedings are not the same but relates to distinct matters." 5. The said question was answered in the negative. 6. This view is a reiteration of earlier view stated in Addl. CIT vs. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service case ITRC 37 of 1973 [reported at (1986) 157 ER 337 (Kar) : TC 57R.428]. The CIT had in fact followed the decision of the High Court in Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service case . It is not necessary for us to dilate on this aspect of the matter any further because this Court in CWT & Anr. vs. Mrs. Kasturbai Walchand & Ors. (1989) 77 CTR (SC) 36 : (1989) 177 ITR 188 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and decided in such appeal. Where the legislature intended that the scope of revision should extend to a part of the order which had not been considered and decided in an appeal and thereby does not merge is explicitly provided. When the legislature does not make such a distinction in the scheme of s. 264 of the Act the view taken by the High Court appears to us to be correct. 7. However, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions in Navnitlal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC): TC 69R.265, Ellerman Lines Ltd. vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 71 : (1972) 82 ITR 913 (SC): TC 69R.265 and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1980) 24 CTR (SC) 358: (1980) 131 ITR 597(SC): TC 69R.266, to contend that the circular issued by the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
