TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (12) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which represented the subsidy received from the State Government after disregarding reduction of an amount of Rs. 61,467 which was part of that amount which the assessee deducted from the value of various assets before claiming depreciation. 3. We will set out certain facts leading to the above contentions. In this case, the ITO made the assessment originally on 28-2-1978. Against loss returned of Rs. 4,81,960 the loss determined was Rs. 4,42,720. In making this assessment depreciation was allowed to the extent of Rs. 1,67,164. The balance sheet filed as on 31-3-1976 before the ITO showed on the liability side: "Reserve for development of the industry &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndirectly in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). What was urged before the Commissioner (Appeals) were only a few grounds one of which related to relief under section 80J of the Act and the other related to the deduction for advertisement charges. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year under consideration was as under: "For the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer is directed to determine the relief under section 80J, if any, that may be admissible to the appellant for this year after examining the matter. He is also directed to go into the claim for the deduction of the advertisement charges, etc., to the extent of Rs. 8,921 incurred during the accounting year but debited to the provision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contentions raised by the parties are interesting and require careful examination. We have already set out the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). What the Commissioner (Appeals) has done is to set aside the assessment 'for considering these two matters'. We have already stated what the two matters were. This is, therefore, not a case where the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment but it is a case where the setting aside was for a limited purpose alone. We have the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pulipati Subbarao & Co. v. AAC [1959] 35 ITR 673 which sets out the scope and action which the ITO can take when such an order is passed. There their Lordships posed the question: "Is it open to the Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 263 state that the Commissioner cannot pass an order after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. We have the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kooka Sidhwa & Co. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 54 which sets out the nature of an order passed by an ITO to give effect to an appellate order. It has been held that it would partake of the nature of an order under section 23 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, i.e., under the 1961 Act it would partake the nature of an order under section 143 of the Act. One of the argument raised before the Calcutta High Court was that once the ITO made an assessment he had become functus officio and if he wanted to revise and amend the order on a direction of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the return already filed. Hence, this process of determining the total income and demanding the tax based on the return filed came to a close only when the ITO passed his order on 29-1-1981. What the Commissioner has sought to revise is the order of assessment which has culminated only when the ITO passed his order on 29-1-1981. Hence, we have to hold that the action of the Commissioner is within time. 9. We may also point out that as far as the order dated 29-1-1981 is concerned, with reference to the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) there is no question of the said order by itself having been merged in any appellate order and the Commissioner was, therefore, not precluded from revising the order on such ground. As we have ....