2013 (10) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee though termed it as for statistical purposes, had directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claims put forth by the assessee to reconsider the question of allowing depreciation on goodwill part of the assessee and for such purposes, the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to ignore the earlier direction that had been issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax while revising the assessment order to disallow depreciation on the goodwill part. 3. The assessee, it appears, had been disallowed such depreciation for earlier years but for the assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer had allowed the depreciation on the goodwill part and for subsequent years without assigning any reason, but it was done otherwise. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner assumed jurisdiction by over looking the objections raised by the assessee that the order was not erroneous and secondly, the question is also concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue and therefore, the Tribunal should have allowed the appeal on that ground instead of remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. 7. It is also submitted that an Assessing Officer will not be in a position to over look the directions that had been earlier issued by the Commissioner, a Superior Officer and in this state of affairs, the Tribunal instead of remanding the matter on such question, and for overlooking the direction of the Commissioner, it should have proceeded to hold that the Commissioner did not have any juris....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal only when the question is decided by the Tribunal, one way or the other. 12. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT -vs- L.F. D'SILVA reported in 192 ITR 547. Submission is that reasoning given by the Commissioner alone will be the criteria for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and other authorities cannot supplement or give their own reasons and therefore, the Tribunal could not have given any further reasons to uphold the order of the Commissioner on the question of jurisdiction. Submitted that the Tribunal giving the reasons that the question was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court on the aspect whether....