1988 (6) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that date. In view of this legal position the order of the Commissioner is invalid in law and needs to be quashed. Reliance was placed on East Coast Marine Products (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1983) 4 ITD 73 (Hyd) (SB). Vionod Kumar Jainchand Shah vs. ITO (1986) 25 TTJ (Bom) and also Auto Pins India vs. ITO (1987) 20 ITD 1 (Del). 3. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel fairly conceded that, in part 2(ii), the Commissioner has highlighted certain possibility of mistakes, such as, differences in the trading account with the ledger. He, however, objected to the observation made by the CIT in para 4 of his order, wherein he has given certain opinions on the basis of which the ITO is expected to pass an order without leaving any right ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... so The issue was again considered by the Bombay Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar Jaichand Shah in which the Explanation as was introduced w.e.f. 1st Oct. 1984 was also considered after which the conclusion have only prospective effect and, accordingly, any orders of the ITO passed after obtaining the approval of the IAC under s. 144B prior to 1st Oct., 1984 could not be revised by the Commissioner under s. 263. Similar view was taken by the Delhi Bench in the case of Auto Pins (India) vs. ITO. Therefore, following the said three decisions of the Tribunal, we have only to hold that the Commissioner could not revise the orders of the ITO is passed after obtaining the approval of the IAC under s. 144B especially as the said orders were passed....