9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the High Court on the following question of law arising out of the assessment year 1975-76 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, did not have jurisdiction under section 263?" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). While the assessee's appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for withdrawal of deduction under section 35 in respect of machine No. (i). Vide order dated February 19, 1980, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 263 in respect of machine No. (i). The appeal has been allowed setting aside the order dated February 21, 1980, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I. The answer to the question is to be found in the theory of merger. Learned counsel for the Department has placed reliance on Mirza Muzamdar Hussain v. Dodla Bhaskara Reddy, AIR 1988 AP 13, and CIT v. Paushak Ltd. [1997] 227 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Therefore, such aspects would not figure in the appellate order. To that extent the order of assessment would not merge in the appellate order and the exercise of power under section 263 by the Commissioner cannot be doubted. In the case at hand, that part of the order by which the Income-tax Officer had allowed the assessee's claim in respect of machine No. (i), i.e., Web offset machine, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
