2014 (10) TMI 945

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'s application for revision under Section 264 of the Act, filed from an Intimation dated 3 January 2004 under Section 143(1) of the Act was rejected. This on the ground that an intimation is not an order within the meaning of Section 264 of the Act to be subjected to revisional jurisdiction. 2) For the A.Y.2003-04 the petitioner filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 7.40 crores being dividend income. In its computation of income as well as in its return of income the petitioner had clearly indicated availability of unabsorbed carried forward business loss amounting to Rs. 12.92 crores. However, due to mistake, the petitioner in its return of income as well as in its computation filed with the respondent did not adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the hearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax the petitioner pointed out binding decisions of this Court where an Intimation under Section 143(1) was considered to be an order for the purposes of Section 263 of the Act (CIT vs. Anderson Marine and Sons Pvt. Ltd. 266 ITR 694). Similarly, reliance was placed upon an unreported decision of this Court in Hindustan Diamond Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT Mumbai City III and ors (W.P. No.2248/2002 rendered on 19th March, 2003) wherein this Court had held that Section 264 would be applicable even in respect of Intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act post 1 June 1999. The Commissioner of Income Tax in the impugned order has ignored the binding decision of this Court of Anderson Marine (s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Anderson Marine and Sons Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while holding that an Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act would be an order for purposes of revision under Section 263 of the Act has observed as under:  "To put it differently, issuance of notice of demand (read Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act), presupposes that it is in consequence of an order having been passed under the Act. In that sense "Intimation" under Section 143(1) would partake of the colour of an order passed under the Act. Understood thus, interference under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner even against an Intimation referable to Section 143(1) is open." In view of the above, once this Court has taken a view that Intimation under Section 143(1) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the notice of the Commissioner of Income Tax he was duty bound to follow the same. It is settled position in law as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs AIR 1962(SC) 1793 wherein it was held that the law declared by the High Court is binding on all authorities and Tribunals within the State. Thus, it is not for the Commissioner of Income Tax to question the correctness of the decision given by the High Court and seek to make distinction where none exists. The Commissioner of Income Tax is obliged to follow the decision of the High Court in letter and spirit. 9) The decision of this Court in Hindustan Diamond Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was binding upon the Commissioner of Inco....