9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order passed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. We are of the view that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise an order under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not correct and is not legally sustainable. – In the result, the matter is remitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - - - - - Dated:- 6-11-2002 - Judge(s) : N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN., K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN J.-In pursuance of the directions of this court in T.C.P. Nos. 49 and 50 of 1995, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal was right in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The following question of law mentioned already is taken as question No. 2: "2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the order under section 263 dated March 9, 1993, made by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 1988-89?" In effect there are two questions which are the subject matter of consideration in both the tax cases. The assessment year involved is 1988-89 and two references have been made as there were two separate orders of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal from two orders of the Commissioner of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so allowed depreciation. The subsequent order of the Income-tax Officer was the subject matter of another revisional order by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and by order dated March 9, 1993, the Commissioner of Income-tax not only held that the Income-tax Officer was not correct in holding the income from the buildings should be assessed under the head "Business", he also went into the question, viz., regarding the cost of construction of the building and not treating the cost of construction as undisclosed income of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that income derived from Srinivas Building should be assessed only under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that in the absence of any such notice by the Commissioner, it is not open to the Commissioner to hold that the cost of construction of the building would represent undisclosed income of the assessee and hence the Commissioner was not justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to initiate an enquiry regarding the cost of construction of the building, and after ascertaining the valuation, treat the unexplained investment as the undisclosed income of the assessee. We also find that the Assessing Officer has not considered the same in his order of assessment. In other words, a new source was discovered by the Commissioner, which was neither discussed by the Income-tax Officer nor any notice was given to the assessee to treat the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer which includes a summary order of assessment and the expression "any order" is not qualified and restricted to the regular assessment order. The power given to the Commissioner by the Act is the revisional power and he is empowered to revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, which includes the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in his summary proceedings under section 143(1)(a) of the Act as well. The scheme of the Act also discloses that "any order" should be widely construed and unless there are grounds to show that the intention of the Legislature is to exclude the summary order of assessment from the purview of revision, we are unable to give a restricted meaning to the expression "any order" excluding the summary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cancelled the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order passed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. We are of the view that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise an order under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not correct and is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, we answer the first question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and the second question in favour of the assessee. In the result, the matter is remitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and it is open to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the question whether the income f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
