Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income-Tax, The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus M/s New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur

2016 (2) TMI 44 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Revision u/s 263 - Whether Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act which is as per law as the provisions of Section 14A are applicable to the total income under the Income tax Act and the fact whether the income of the assessee is computed as per Section 11 or not is of no relevance? - Held that:- The undisputed facts are that the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passéd by the Assessing Officer on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, it is clear that the order dated 27.12.2009 passed by the Assessing Officer is no longer in existence. CIT exercising the powers under Section 263 of the Act revised the non-existing order dated 27.12.2009, the Tribunal having considered this factual position arrived at a conclusion that CIT had no jurisdiction to revise the order which was not in existence. The order passed by the CIT, revising the non-existing order is void ab-initio and is a nullity in the eye of law. As such, the Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e points involved in second question of law now raised, in an appeal preferred by the assesee against the order of the revisional authority exercising the powers under Section 263 of the Act. No such cross objections are maintainable in an appeal filed against the order of revision in terms of Section 253(4) of the Act. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal rejecting the cross objections filed by the revenue as not maintainable is justifiable. - Decided in favour of the assessee - ITA Nos. 532-5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and C.O.No.66/Bang/2014. 2. The facts in brief: The assessee is a trust constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The assessee being a Government undertaking carrying on commercial activities is one of the major port trust enjoying the benefits of provisions of sub-section 20 of Section 10 of the Act since its inception. The assessee applied for registration under Section 12A of the Act on 27.03.2006. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) denied registration to the assessee. On appeal be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anded to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.05.2011 has given effect to the order passed by the CIT under Section 264 of the Act. However, the original order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2009 was revised by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act by order dated 22.03.2012. 3. This order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act was challenged by the assessee for the assessment year 2007- 08 before the ITAT. The revenue has filed cross objecti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assed on 29.12.2009 has got merged with the order dated:27.05.2011 when the latter order was only giving effect to the order passed by CIT under Section 264 and it modified the previous order to that extent only and hence the original assessment order cannot be said to have lost its identity? 2. Whether Hon ble Tribunal was right in law in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act which is as per law as the provisions of Section 14A are applicable to the t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the CIT under Section 264 of the Act. The Tribunal under a misconception held that the assessment order passed on 29.12.2009 has got merged with the order dated 27.05.2011. It is further contended by the learned counsel that cross objections filed by the revenue under Section 253(4) of the Act was wrongly rejected by the Tribunal as not maintainable, contrary to Section 253(4) of the Act. Accordingly, he seeks to answer the question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 7. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

263 of the Act. As such, invoking of suo-moto revision powers by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act is not justifiable as rightly considered by the Tribunal, the same cannot be found fault with. It is further submitted that cross objections filed by the revenue is not maintainable in terms of Section 253(4) of the Act. Thus, the ITAT rejected the cross objections filed by the revenue which does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. We have given careful consideration to the rival su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pute the income of the assessee in terms of the order of revision under Section 264 of the Act. The said order was given effect to by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.05.2011. Thus, it is clear that the order dated 27.12.2009 passed by the Assessing Officer is no longer in existence. CIT exercising the powers under Section 263 of the Act revised the non-existing order dated 27.12.2009, the Tribunal having considered this factual position arrived at a conclusion that CIT had no jurisdict .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version