TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the assessment on 20th March, 1981. 3. The above assessment was taken up in revision by the CWT under s. 25 of the WT Act, 1957, on the ground that the order of the WTO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. During the assessment for a subsequent year, namely, 1977-78, it was found that the assessee had, on 21st May, 1975, entered into an agreement for the sale of the property for Rs. 1,75,000. In pursuance of the same, the property was actually sold for the same amount on 10th Nov., 1976. As the transaction showed that the property was agreed to be sold at a price of Rs. 1,75,000 within a period of one and a half month from the valuation date i.e., 31st March, 1975, it was felt by the CWT that the value of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the property in the Municipal Office Road, Trichur, was not a subject matter of appeal before the CWT(A). It was contended by the ld. Representative for the assessee that irrespective of whether a particular issue was the subject matter of the appeal, there would be a total merger of the assessment order in the appellate order and that the CWT cannot, therefore, take up the matter revision. In support of the contention, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Methar & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1969) 71 ITR 247 (Ker). The question that came up for consideration in that case was whether the ITO, can rectify an assessment order under s. 154, after the assessment order had been subjected to an appeal before the AAC. The co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal. The decision was distinguished by the Kerala High Court on the ground that in the case of Central India Insurance Co. Ltd. the appeal was before the Tribunal, that the jurisdiction of a Tribunal in an appeal was limited and that the appellate jurisdiction of an AAC was much wider. It was thereafter that the High Court observed that the computation was also subject matter of the appeal. The ratio of the decision of the Kerala High Court, therefore, seems to be that in the case of an appeal before the AAC there could be merger even with regard to matter which were not the subject matter of appeal before the AAC. The matter has been considered by a Special Bench of the Tribunal in Dwarkadas & Co. (P) Ltd. ITO (1982) 13 TTJ 107 (Bom)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....124 ITR 570 (Bom), Smt. Nita Taneja vs. Asstt. CED (1985) 45 CTR (Pat) 247 : (1984) 150 ITR 668 (Pat), CIT vs. Bharani Pictures (1980) 14 CTR (Mad) 245 : (1981) 129 ITR 244 (Mad). The decisions to the contrary are J. K. Synthetices Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All) and CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala (1953) 23 ITR 412 (Bom). The decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of K. C. Methar & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1969) 71 ITR 247 (Ker) can also be placed under this category. In the absence of a pronouncement to the contrary be the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court, we respectfully follow the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dwarkadas & Co. (P) Ltd. and hold that a revision in the present case wa....