Revisional jurisdiction over 144B assessments upheld where procedural directions do not cause merger of the assessment order.

An assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B remained open to revision under section 263, because compliance with the 144B procedure did not by itself cause the assessment order to merge in the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's directions. Applying its earlier ruling, the Madras HC upheld the Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction and rejected the Tribunal's contrary view on jurisdiction. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment made under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be revised by the Commissioner under section 263, and whether the assessment order merged in the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: The assessment year involved was 1979-80, and the assessment had been completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B on the basis of directions issued in the course of the assessment proceedings. The Court applied its earlier decision holding that an assessment completed in such circumstances is still amenable to revisional jurisdiction under section 263. On that basis, the order of the assessing authority did not cease to be open to revision merely because it had been made after following the procedure under section 144B, and the Tribunal's jurisdictional view could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The questions were answered in favour of the Revenue, and it was held that the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263. The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for decision on the merits.

---