9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssary opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its contentions. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the CIT and has, therefore, come up in the present appeal before us. 3. The assessee's ld. counsel Shri Patil submitted to us that in the draft assessment submitted by the ITO, the amount of Rs. 19,38,131 was disallowed and the IAC by his order under s. 144B directed the ITO to allow this claim of deduction. In these circumstances, according to Shri Patil, the assessment order, on this issue, had merged in the order of the IAC under s. 144B and, hence, the CIT had no jurisdiction to exercise his powers under s. 263 in respect of this allowance. Reference in this connection was made by him to the decision of the Special Bench of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (MP) (FB), wherein Their Lordships laid down that the assessment order merge in the order of the Appellate Authority only to the extent of the points raised in the appeal and decided by the Appellate Authority. Reference was also made by him to a ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1980) 124 ITR 570 (Bom) where also the same views were expressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. He, therefore, justified the order of the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 5. We have carefully consider the rival submissions. At the outset it would be necessary to point out that in the case of CIT vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble High Court Bombay were dealing wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO and Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, we hold that after the decision of the appeal against the assessment order by the CIT (A) on 3rd Sept., 1982 the CIT had not more the jurisdiction to revise the assessment under s. 263 on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and, therefore, the order of the CIT under s. 263, dt. 18th Aug., 1983 was without jurisdiction. It is further not under dispute that in so far as the allowance of Rs. 19,38,131 was concerned, the ITO in the draft assessment order, had proposed disallowance of the claim of deduction and this allowance was made by the ITO while giving effect to the order of the IAC under s. 144B. On this issue, therefore the allowance was the result of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
