TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ petition challenging Commissioner's decision on income tax revision, emphasizes statutory limitations.</h1> <h3>Mysore Tobacco Co. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Karnataka</h3> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Commissioner of Income-tax's rejection of a revision petition for the assessment year 1971-72. The ... Revision Issues:Challenge to order by Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting revision petition for assessment year 1971-72. Interpretation of provisions of s. 264(4)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Application of doctrine of merger in the context of appellate or revisional orders. Comparison with similar provisions under s. 33A(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Analysis of powers of the Commissioner under ss. 263 and 264.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order by the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting their revision petition for the assessment year 1971-72. The petitioner contended that the relief sought before the Commissioner had not been part of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, allowing the Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction under s. 264(4)(c). The Commissioner rejected the petition citing that the assessment order was subject to appeal, thus barring his interference under the provision. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was not merged with the Tribunal's decision, making the rejection unjustifiable.The judge referred to the doctrine of merger and the scope of statutory provisions conferring appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The judge analyzed s. 264(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which restricts the Commissioner from revising orders in specific cases, including when the order is under appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The judge also discussed a similar provision under s. 33A(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and agreed with the reasoning from a previous judgment regarding the interpretation of such provisions.The judge emphasized that the Commissioner's power to grant relief should be evaluated based on specific statutory provisions. Citing a Kerala High Court case, the judge reiterated that s. 264(4) does not bar a remedy but prohibits the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in certain cases. Ultimately, the judge found no illegality in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the writ petition without costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of understanding the limitations on the Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction and the significance of statutory provisions in determining the scope of such powers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
