9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench, : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the original assessment orders dated April 7, 1971, stood merged in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order dated November 15, 1972, before the Commissioner initiates revision proceedings ? " The facts giving rise to this reference may briefly be stated as under: Vide partnership deed dated February 13, 1968, a partnership c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriods. The assessee went up in appeal against the order dated April 20, 1972 of the ITO and the AAC, vide his order dated November 15, 1972, allowed the appeal by holding, that the fact that the firm would not be dissolved on the death or retirement of a partner was known to the ITO because the same was incorporated in the partnership deed (annex. A) and, for that reason, jurisdiction under s. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under s. 263 of the Act. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala [1953] 23 ITR 412. It was observed therein (headnote) : " When an appeal is provided from a decision of a Tribunal and the appeal court after hearing the appeal passes an order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The Commissioner revised these two orders and directed the ITO to reframe the assessment in accordance with law. On facts, therefore, the assessee cannot invoke the principle of merger of the order passed by the ITO in the order passed by the AAC. It is not disputed that the Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction within the period of limitation prescribed by law. On merits also t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
