9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (9) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asked for by the petitioner in those appeals. It is enough to note that the petitioner did not prefer any claim based on section 4(3)(xii) of the Act, and such a claim was not the subject-matter of any of these appeals On December 10, 1954, that is, after the disposal of the appeals by the Assistant Commissioner and before the petitioner preferred appeals to the Tribunal against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner applied to the Income-tax Officer and to the Commissioner of Income-tax for relief under section 4(3)(xii). The claim of the petitioner was that the construction of the two houses in question was commenced in April, 1949, and completed by March 31, 1950, which was within the statutory limits prescribed by section 4(3)(xii). (2) THE Income-tax Officer could not revise his orders of assessment, and we need not concern ourselves further with the application preferred to him by the petitioner. In the application preferred simultaneously to the Commissioner, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner by section 33A(2). THE Commissioner called for reports from his subordinates, and eventually on September 28, 1955, he dismissed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round on which the Commissioner rejected the applications does not bear any scrutiny. None the less, we have to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the Department, that the petitioner misconceived his remedy when he invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 33A(2). Section 33A(2) ran (2) The Commissioner may, on application by an assessee for revision of an order under this Act, passed by any authority subordinate to the Commissioner, made within one year from the date of the order (or within such further period, as the Commissioner may think fit to allow on being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period), call for the record of the proceeding in which such order was passed, and on receipt of the record may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit Provided that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under this sub-section if-- (a) where an appeal against the order lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted his claim that the Tribunal would have had no jurisdiction, in the circumstances of this case, to grant a relief not claimed in the appeals, the relief claimed by the assessee independently of the appeals in the applications he preferred to the Commissioner under section 33A(2). That, however, is not enough to exclude the petitioner's claim preferred to the Commissioner from the scope of the ban imposed by clause (c) of the proviso to section 33A(2). That ban applies where the order, the revision of which the assessee seeks under section 33A(2) is made the subject of appeal to the Tribunal. There is no dispute about the factual position that the order the Commissioner was asked to revise was the order of assessment, the order of the Income-tax Officer in each of the two years. Was that order of assessment the subject of an appeal to the Tribunal within the meaning of clause (c) of the proviso is the question. It was. That the relief claimed in the applications preferred under section 33A(2) was not the subject-matter of the appeal to the Tribunal does not alter the position that the order of assessment was the subject of the appeal. To put it differently, the fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t permit concurrent remedies, appellate and revisional with reference to any of the reliefs an assessee could claim with reference to an order of assessment. That is the position, even though the Assistant Commissioner is a subordinate of the Commissioner or is deemed to be the subordinate of the Commissioner for the purposes of section 33A(2). But then the Commissioner can subsequently revise the orders of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner, however, has no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Tribunal. (6) THEREFORE , under clause (c) of the proviso, an appeal being preferred to the Tribunal is enough to bar the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. If no appeal has been preferred to the Tribunal but there is still time to prefer the appeal, clause (a) comes into play and bars the revisional jurisdiction. If an appeal is preferred, clause (c) comes into play and bars the jurisdiction to revise the order appealed against, the whole or any portion of that order. The finality of an assessment which flows from the order of a Tribunal cannot obviously be disturbed by the Commissioner in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 33A(2). Consistent with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
