TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income- tax had no jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise those orders ?" 2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows 4. The assessee is a registered firm and derived income from carpet business. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,02,252 by way of provision for payment of bonus in respect of weavers who had worked for the assessee during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1980-81. This amount represented 4 per cent. of the total wages payable to them which amounted to R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as illegal, uncalled for and without any basis. The authorised representative for the assessee in Support of this contention placed reliance on various decisions and strongly contended that the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax was against law and the same was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the Departmental representative justified the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax relying upon the various decisions of this court and that of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [ 1983] 4 ITD 73 (Hyd). The Tribunal, after considering the submission of both the sides and the decision relied upon by them, held as under: "7. We have considered the submission of both the parties ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Satish Chandra Nirmesh Kumar v. Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax [1974] 34 STC 304 and distinguished these decisions and thus, the ratio of the decision in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 344 (All) is still good law. It need not be repeated that the decision of the hon'ble Allahabad High Court has a binding effect on us as we are functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of UP. For the above reasons, we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under section 263 in view of the decision in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under: 'Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,……. (c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject-matter of any appeal filed on or before or after June 1, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.' The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal. ....