9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said appellate order: "Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of assessment under section 8(2) of the Interest-tax Act 1974, dated January 6, 1989, is erroneous and prejudicial, to the interests of the Revenue and the Commissioner of Income tax has properly exercised his jurisdiction under section 19 of the Interest-tax Act 1974?" Heard Shri R.T. Thanevala, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee, and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the non-applicant/Revenue. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this reference is, whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in invoking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned issues. This is how and the manner in which the Tribunal decided the issue in question in paragraph 9 of their appellate order while upholding the order of the Commissioner when challenged unsuccessfully by the assessee in appeal: "Paragraph 9.-We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the documents placed on record. The judgments quoted by the assessee were also carefully perused by us and we agreed with the contentions of the assessee that for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 19 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The contention of the assessee is also acceptable to us that the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in which he has justified his claim of non-offering the export subsidy and interest on sticky loans to tax. The assessment order was passed on January 6, 1989 after the assessment order passed under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1985-86 in which the claim of the assessee with regard to the interest on sticky loans was rejected by the Assessing Officer. This fact cannot be ignored that the assessment orders under the Income-tax Act and under the Interest-tax Act for the assessment year 1986-87 were passed by the same Assessing Officer, Mr. Swatantrakumar. In the assessment order under the Income-tax Act the claim of the assessee was rejected, but in the assessment order under the Interest-tax Act the claim of the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are, therefore, of the view that the order of assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and the Commissioner of Income-tax has properly exercised this jurisdiction. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and dismiss the appeals of the assessee." In our considered opinion, the Commissioner seems to be right in invoking the powers of revision under section 19 ibid. The Tribunal has gone into the question as to whether the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and has come to a definite conclusion on the facts that it was. It was then the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner as being in accordance with law. In our opinion, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
