9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cloth. Necessary income returns were submitted for the assessment year 1975-76. The second respondent, Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle-I, Coimbatore, completed the assessment by his order dated March 20, 1978. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), disputing addition in the income to the tune of Rs. 3,73,341, though according to the appellant, it was not an income defined under the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner, the first respondent (sic) accepted the contention and allowed the appeal by his order dated October 28, 1978, and thus the liability to pay income-tax was reduced proportionately. As the second respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vociferously argued that as the subject-matter of the revision. namely, depreciation and reduction in realisation of incremental liability towards gratuity, was not the subject-matter of the appeal before the Commissioner, the first respondent (sic), the grievances in revision ought to have been considered in accordance with law. Further, the disputes not having been appealed against, even the first respondent could have exercised suo motu power under section 263 of the Act independent of any other proceedings. To repel this contention, learned counsel for the respondents has pleaded the specific bar under section 264(4)(c) of the Act, and justified the rejection order. In our vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der under appeal was a composite order, dealing with all these disputes and when challenged, shall be deemed to have been examined by the first respondent (sic). While exercising appellate jurisdiction, the word "order" used in clause (c) of sub-section (4) denotes an order in its entirety and not piece meal. It is immaterial whether only a part of that order was challenged. In our view, the provision is very clear and provides an express bar and prohibition against exercising revision jurisdiction in a case where the order has already been made the subject-matter of an appeal. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the interpretation as above requires any further fortification by judicial pronouncements. Of course, in support of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the provisions of section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, can also lend support to the express prohibition contained in section 264(4)(c). Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with principles of res judicata. It provides an express bar to try the same issue which was directly or substantially in issue between the same parties in a former proceeding. This rule casts an obligation upon the party agitating rights to raise all the grounds of defence or attack available in a particular proceeding, and if the party fails to include the grounds of defence or attack, which otherwise ought to have been made in the former proceedings, should be precluded from raising such grounds of attack or defence in any other proceeding. This principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
