TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1995 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2000 - Judge(s) : S. RAJENDRA BABU. and Y. K. SABHARWAL. Judgment RAJENDRA BABU, J.: The appellant before us is M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., which is a wholly centrally owned Government company engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes and its parts. For the asst. yr. 1970-71, the appellant filed its return before. the concerned ITO who by an order made on 15th March, 1973, completed the assessment by disallowing certain deductions claimed by the appellant on various grounds. Against the assessment order of the ITO, the assessee filed an appeal before the AAC who by an order made on 27th Oct., 1976, partly allowed the same. By the order of the AAC, both the Revenue and the assessee preferred second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion petition filed by the appellant could not be maintained and the CIT was justified in dismissing the same. The question considered by the Full Bench was as follows : "Can the CIT entertain assessee's revision petition under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961, preferred from a part of order of the CIT(A) against which the assessee is aggrieved during the pendency or after the disposal, as the case may be, of the Department's second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal preferred against another part of the same order where the subject-matter of the appellate and revisional proceedings are not the same but relates to distinct matters." The said question was answered in the negative. 4. This view is a reiteration of earlier view st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided. We may notice that s. 263 of the Act where a revision is permissible in cases of orders which are prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, in the Expln. (c) thereof it has been provided where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the AO had been the subject-matter of any appeal the powers of the CIT under this subsection shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Where the legislature intended that the scope of revision should extend to a part of the order which had not been considered and decided in an appeal and thereby does not merge is explicitly provided. When the legislature does not make such a distinction in the scheme of s. 264 of the Act the view taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
