Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner could entertain a revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the assessment order had already been made the subject of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), even though the particular reliefs later sought in revision had not been raised in that appeal.
Analysis: Section 264(4)(c) bars revisional jurisdiction where the very order sought to be revised has been made the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal. The unity of the assessment order governs the bar; it is not necessary that every individual claim or item in the order should have been urged in appeal. Once the assessment order is carried in appeal, revision and appeal are not concurrent remedies in respect of that order, and the Commissioner's revisional power comes to an end. The settled principle applied was that the scope of the appeal does not control the statutory bar, because the order itself, and not the particular relief later claimed, is the relevant subject of appeal.
Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable, and the Commissioner rightly refused to entertain it for want of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: When an assessment order has been made the subject of an appeal, section 264(4)(c) bars revision of that order in its entirety, regardless of whether specific items now sought to be revised were raised in the appeal.