TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. of 1994 on January 11, 1995, for our opinion: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order dated December 12, 1986, because the same, after rectification, stood merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? " Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was originally completed on 12th December, 1986, under section 143(3) of the Act. In that assessment deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was allowed at Rs. 2,58,553. A proceeding under section 154 of the Act was initiated. In this proceeding, the deduction under the same provision to the extent of Rs. 2,48, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act in the undernoted terms : " In view of these facts and circumstances, it is contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the assessment order coupled with the order passed under section 154 by the Assessing Officer had merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and as such no order of the Assessing Officer was available for revision under section to the Commissioner of Income-tax, who revised the order subsequent to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on March 20, 1989. In support, reliance has been placed upon Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal). The facts of that case are in pari materia wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the applicant was unable to satisfy us as to how the Tribunal was not right to pass the order as it did. No authority can revise a thing which is not in existence. There is no dispute to this proposition of law. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error of law and rightly held that the Commissioner of Income-tax had lacked jurisdiction to revise the order which was not available for revision on the relevant date. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The aforesaid miscellaneous civil case thus stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
