9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im was disallowed by the Income Tax authorities. But it came up for decision in a reference before this Court in Mohammad Haneef v. Commissioner of Income Tax Kerala (1967) 64 ITR 32. This Court answered the question in favour of the petitioner. That judgment was pronounced on 14-10-1966. The petitioner claimed a deduction of ₹ 29,690 on the same account for the assessment year 1961-62. The claim was naturally disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the light of the decision of the Income Tax authorities on the said question in respect of the previous assessment years. The petitioner did not file an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, apparently in view of the pendency of the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that the remedy by way of revision was lost to him in view of the appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Reliance was placed by counsel for the Revenue in support of the above contention on the decision of the Madras High Court in Njana Sundara Navagar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1961) 41 ITR 375 Before I refer to the above decision, it is necessary to read sub-s. (4) of S. 264 of the Act, in order to appreciate the argument. (4). The Commissioner shall not revise any order under this section in the following cases: (a) where an appeal against the order lies to the Appellate Commissioner or to the Appellate Tribunal bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, however, one distinction between the Madras case and the case before me. In the Madras case, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax were both filed by the same party. No doubt, they raised different points. In the instant case, the appeal was filed by one party, while the revision was filed by the opposite party. Here also the points raised in the appeal and the revision were different. Therefore, it was argued that the fact that one party filed an appeal before the Tribunal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would not affect the right of the other party to file a revision from the same order before the Commissioner. It was submitted that what is barred by Clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief from this Court, though his right cannot be disputed. The jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is very wide; and at the same time discretionary. I think in a case where the right is clearly there, and the remedy provided by the Statute was not availed of for sufficient reason, it would be a sound exercise of jurisdiction to give relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the petitioner did not file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, as it had already decided the point against him in a number of appeals which he filed in respect of previous assessment years, and the matter was pending decision before this Court. As soon as the question was decided in his favour by this Court, he mov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
