1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Commissioner's Error in Deeming Revision Unmaintainable: High Court Clarifies Appealable Orders</h1> The High Court of ALLAHABAD held that the Commissioner erred in deeming a revision under section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 as not ... Powers Of Tribunal Issues:1. Entertainability of revision under section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Maintainability of the revision by the Commissioner.3. Interpretation of section 33A(2) regarding the bar on revision.4. Consideration of belated revision application.5. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain the revision.Analysis:The High Court of ALLAHABAD heard a petition challenging the Commissioner of Income-tax's refusal to entertain a revision under section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner was assessed to income tax with an interest demand of Rs. 2,27,193 under section 18A(6) of the Act. The petitioner filed a revision against the interest order before the Commissioner and also appealed against the assessment order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, challenging the interest imposition. The Assistant Commissioner later reduced the interest amount. The petitioner filed a revision under section 33A against this order, which the Commissioner dismissed as not maintainable and belated. The Commissioner held the second revision as not maintainable due to the petitioner's appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which also dismissed the appeal. The court analyzed section 33A(2) and held that the Commissioner erred in deeming the revision as not maintainable based on the appeal to the Tribunal, as the appeal was not maintainable itself. The court emphasized that the bar on revision applies when an appeal is maintainable under the Act. The judgment highlighted the distinction between appealable orders and those subject to appeal, stating that if no appeal lies against an order, it cannot be made the subject of appeal. The court concluded that the Commissioner failed to exercise his jurisdiction by deeming the revision as not maintainable. The court also noted that the Commissioner did not consider if the revision was belated due to circumstances preventing timely application. The court directed the Commissioner to decide on the revision in accordance with the law, allowing the petition with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
