1992 (2) TMI 145 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed, order canceled for jurisdictional overreach. Importance of legal limits emphasized.

Amrit Banaspati Company Limited. Versus Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

Amrit Banaspati Company Limited. Versus Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. - ITD 047, 164, Issues:1. Validity of the order under section 263 passed by the Commissioner.2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 in light of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court.3. Applicability of the retrospective amendment to section 263.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The appeal challenged the order under section 263 dated 30th March, 1987, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, against the assessee. The Commissioner found the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The issues raised included discrepancies in stock details, investment allowance on machinery, and legal expenses. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the investment allowance and make proper inquiries into the mentioned matters.Issue 2: The additional grounds of appeal questioned the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263. The appellant argued that the Commissioner exceeded his authority as the assessment order was already subject to appeal before the CIT (Appeals). Citing the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, it was contended that the principle of merger applied, and the Commissioner could not revise the order under section 263. The argument was supported by legal precedents and the contention that the Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction.Issue 3: The retrospective amendment to section 263, effective from 1st June, 1988, raised questions about its applicability to cases where the time limit for jurisdiction under section 263 had already lapsed. The debate centered on whether the amendment could revive matters where the Commissioner had no jurisdiction before the amendment's enactment. The conflicting views of different High Courts were considered, with a focus on the decision that favored the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the order under section 263 in a case already under appeal before the CIT (Appeals).In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the order passed under section 263 on legal grounds, thereby not delving into the merits of the case. The decision highlighted the importance of jurisdictional limitations and legal precedents in determining the validity of orders under section 263.