TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Income- tax Officer's orders had merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income- tax had no jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise those orders ?" 2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows 4. The assessee is a registered firm and derived income from carpet business. The Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24 1980-83 99,145" 5. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee came up in appeal before the Tribunal. The authorised representative for the assessee contended before the Tribunal that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in passing order under section 263 of the Act and furthermore that the said order was illegal, uncalled for and without any basis. The authorised representative for the assessee in Support of this contention placed reliance on various decisions and strongly contended that the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax was against law and the same was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the Departmental representative justified the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax relying upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax (Appeals) irrespective of the points urged by the parties or decided by the appellate authority, it is a fact that their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd . [1976] 105 ITR 344 did consider the facts of the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G. V. Shah, ITO [1975] 98 ITR 255 and the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Satish Chandra Nirmesh Kumar v. Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax [1974] 34 STC 304 and distinguished these decisions and thus, the ratio of the decision in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd . [1976] 105 ITR 344 (All) is still good law. It need not be repeated that the decision of the hon'ble Allahabad High Court has a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame up for Consideration before the apex court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd . [1998] 231 ITR 50, wherein the apex court has held as follows (page 52) "We may refer to the amendment made in section 263 of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from June 1, 1988. The relevant part thereof for the present case is as under: 'Explanation .-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,……. (c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject-matter of any appeal filed on or before or after June 1, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
