1996 (4) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ake the assessment after compliance with section 144B of the Income-tax Act which was mandatory ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax merely on the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax had not given any finding on the subject-matter in dispute to prove that the order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue by cogent material before setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer and remanding it back to him for assessment in accordance with law ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction to set aside the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cancelled the order of the Income-tax Officer made under section 154 of the Act. It is said that the Revenue has not filed any reference against that order and, accordingly, the order of the Tribunal cancelling the order under section 154 of the Act has become final. Then the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Act, which appeal was also allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated September 6, 1984. For the assessment year 1978-79 as well against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act, the appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. On these facts, the aforesaid questions have been referred to this court for its opinion. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Revenue, since it did not choose to file any reference application. It was the assessment order dated March 24, 1980, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 70,980 against which the appeal of the assessee was even partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as per order dated February 15, 1982, which again was not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, there was no question of any variation of income of more than Rs. 1 lakh. The whole foundation of the argument of Mr. Rastogi, therefore, fails as the provisions of section 144B of the Act became inapplicable. Moreover, the order of the Income-tax Officer got merged with the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It could not be disputed that a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X