9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (1) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a company whose business consists of manufacture of aluminium articles as detailed in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to necessary rebate as contemplated by Paragraph F(1)(b)(ii)(a) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965. One of the main businesses of the petitioner consisted of export of aluminium utensils and articles and goods outside India. There was an order of assessment and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment for the assessment year 1965-66, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order held, inter alia, as follows : " 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate on export profit @ 1/10th of 16.00% on Rs. 25,25,489 (as per para (20) of A.A.C.'s order) 1,16,173 ---------------- 16,03,132 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the 4th of November, 1974. In the said notice after setting out the facts, the Commissioner observed, inter alia, as follows : " The Income-tax Officer while giving effect to the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed rebate on export profit amounting to Rs. 1,16,173 and Rs. 65,291 for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 respectively. In doing so, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Assistant Commissioner, could not be the subject-matter of revision by the Commissioner by virtue of his power under section 263 of the Act. It has to be borne in mind that there is no question of any merger of this order of the Income-tax Officer with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There cannot be any merger of the order of the appellate authority with an order of the subordinate authority. The question, therefore, is whether when the Income-tax Officer has passed an order to implement and to give effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it formed part of the appellate order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. This question, in my opinion, has to be judged in the light of the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1969] 73 ITR 539 (SC) and relied on the observations by the court at page 543 of the report. But the said observations are not quite relevant for determining the question whether the impugned order passed by the Income-tax Officer in the instant case was really a part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There cannot be any dispute that if it was part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner then the same could not be touched by the Commissioner. But, on the other hand, if it was not a part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but an independent order having an independent existence in the eye of law, then the same could be subject to the revisional jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
