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 refuse to entertain a revision under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on the ground that an appeal had been filed though the impugned order was not appealable, and whether delay in filing the revision could be treated as a bar without examining condonation.
Analysis: Section 33A(2) bars revision only where an appeal against the order lies under the Act and the statutory conditions in clauses (a) to (c) are attracted. The expression "appeal which lies" refers to an appeal that is actually provided by the Act against that order, and clause (c) applies only where a maintainable appeal has been instituted. If no appeal lies against the order, the mere filing of an appeal does not create the statutory bar to revision. The Tribunal had treated the order as not appealable, and no material showed that it was appealable. The question of delay was not examined on merits because the Commissioner had rejected the revision as not maintainable.
Conclusion: The revision was maintainable and the Commissioner wrongly declined jurisdiction; the objection based on delay was left for fresh consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The bar under section 33A(2) arises only when the relevant order is one against which an appeal actually lies under the Act and the statutory appellate process has been validly invoked.