Commissioner cannot use section 263 to overturn ITO order based on binding decision; 80HH/80J deduction upheld

Bombay HC held that the Commissioner cannot invoke revisional power under section 263 to undo an Income-tax Officer's order rendered on the basis of a binding decision. The court endorsed prior HC precedents recognizing the ITO as a quasi-judicial authority and found no provision in sections 80HH/80J permitting withdrawal of a special deduction for subsequent years unless the relief for the initial year was withdrawn. The Tribunal's allowance was therefore upheld; the question challenging that approach was answered negatively in favour of the assessee and the other question was left undecided.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 80HH for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, and section 80J deduction for 1982-83.
2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

Entitlement to Deductions:
The assessee, a firm with branches in backward areas engaged in construction, transportation, and brick manufacturing, claimed deductions under sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment years. The Income-tax Officer allowed the deductions based on legal precedents. The Commissioner, in a revisional jurisdiction under section 263, quashed the orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The Tribunal, considering the merger of the assessment order for 1981-82 in the appellate order and the binding nature of the High Court decision relied upon, held that revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised. It also emphasized that deductions granted for the earlier year should not be denied for subsequent years unless withdrawn, as there was no provision for withdrawal of special deductions under the relevant sections.

Jurisdiction of Commissioner:
The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal principles established in various High Court cases, including the Calcutta High Court and the Allahabad High Court, which held that revisional power cannot be used to overturn an Income-tax Officer's order based on a binding decision. The Tribunal's approach was deemed legally sound, as there was no provision for withdrawing deductions for subsequent years without cause. The Tribunal's decision was further reinforced by a recent Supreme Court ruling, leading to a conclusion in favor of the assessee on the jurisdictional issue.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee on the jurisdictional question. The legal principles and precedents cited supported the Tribunal's findings, ultimately leading to a negative answer to question No. 2 in favor of the assessee. As a result, question No. 1 did not require an answer, and no costs were awarded in the matter.

---