9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 263?" The assessee is an individual. The relevant previous year was Samvat year 2025. During the financial year 1969-70, an advance tax demand of Rs. 13,950 was raised on the assessee under section 210 of the Income-tax Act. In response to the said demand, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 12,440. The self-assessment tax on the basis of the income return furnished by the assessee came to Rs. 10,007. The assessee was, however, assessed on a total income of Rs. 64,107 and Rs. 29,968 was the tax determined on the assessee's income as per the regular assessment order dated May 22, 1971. The tax determined as aforesaid exceeded the advance tax demanded unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re it were two-fold. Firstly, it was contended that since there was no order before the Commissioner which could have been said to have been made by the Income-tax Officer under section 217(lA), the Commissioner had under section 263 of the Income-tax. Act no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order levying interest under section 217(1A). Secondly, it was urged that if the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer was considered to have, by implication, included an order waiving the levy of interest payable under section 217(lA), the order of the Income-tax Officer was no longer revisable by the Commissioner as in the meantime the Income-tax Officer's assessment order had been taken by the assessee in appeal to the Appellate Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court authorities on the point. The Bench found the matter directly covered by CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala [1953] 23 ITR 412 (Bom), though a decision under the 1922 Act, laid down the principles which were applicable to the 1961 enactment. According to the Bench, in CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC), the Supreme Court had referred to the Bombay High Court's judgment in Tejaji Farasram Kharawala's case [1953] 23 ITR 412 (at page 134 of the report) without adversely commenting upon it. Indeed, a passage from the Supreme Court's judgment has been extracted by the Bench which would approve the view taken by the High Court in Tejaji Farasram Kharawala's case [1953] 23 ITR 412 (Bom), and subsequently confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but the matters which are not covered by the appellate order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are left untouched and to that extent, the Income-tax Officer's assessment order survives and would permit exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Mr. Jetley also drew our attention to the observations made in Addl. CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd [1988] 169 ITR 533 (SC), where the Supreme Court refrained from deciding the question as by the time the matter came up for hearing before the Supreme Court, the matter had become academic. The assessee, it seems, had succeeded on merits on the revisional order of the Commissioner and, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
