9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-76 for which the previous year ended 31st Dec., 1974. 2. The ITO completed the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration on 31st Oct., 1977. Therein, the ITO allowed depreciation as per rules vide Annexure 'A' of Rs. 30,128 and the income from the house property was determined after allowing the deduction of 1/6th for repairs and certain amount of Corporation tax. 3. Later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the AAC in the appeal filed by the assessee had merged in that order (of the AAC). In support thereof, reliance was placed on various decisions. This was not acceptable to the CIT, who has held that he has the jurisdiction to revise the assessment order. Thereafter, the CIT for the reasons recorded in paras 4 and 5 of his order, held that the order passed by the ITO was erroneous and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addl. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All); and 3. Kirpa Ram Kailash Chand (1979) 118 ITR 297 (HP). On merits, the representative for the assessee basing himself on the decision of the Tribunal (Allahabad Bench-'B') in ITA Nos. 117 & 50/Alld/1977-78 (asst. yr. 1973-74), decided on 31st Oct., 1980, urged that the assessment order by the ITO on the point at issue was correct. These arguments of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some of the deduction claimed by the assessee had been disallowed, it filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by the AAC on 14th Dec., 1972, with the result that the assessment was modified. Later on, the Addl. CIT sought to revise the order of the ITO for the year involved over there, on the ground that the said order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, inasmuch as it granted devel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the AAC. Although the aforesaid decision of Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court in Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. have taken the contrary view, we respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court, upheld the preliminary objection raised by the representative for the assessee before us that the CIT had no jurisdiction in the present case under s. 263(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
