TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d history starting with the assessment of the assessee-company in May, 1995 under the Gift-tax Act. We are for the present not concerned with the various stages through which the litigation has progressed and the orders that the authorities have passed in those proceedings from time to time. All that we need mention is that pursuant to an order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed on March 31, 2004, the Gift-tax Officer computed the amount of gift-tax payable by the petitioner and charged interest under section 220(2) read with section 32(2) of the Gift-tax Act with effect from May 17, 1995. A demand for an amount of Rs. 18,69,857 towards interest was raised against the petitioner on that basis. Aggrieved the petitioner p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the regular assessment. The Assessing Officer has charged statutory interest thereon after giving appeal effect. The assessee filed a regular appeal against this order giving appeal effect and this has been decided by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) through a speaking order on the merits. Therefore the so called order under revision is an order subject to an appeal. The reliance placed on the Board's Circular No. 367 by the appellant is misplaced. The legal position in this regard has been outlined in the preceding para. As the revision petition is against an order which was the subject-matter of an appeal, this petition is not maintainable." The petitioner has in the present writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the appeal was dismissed on ground of limitation. 2. The Board are of the view that the order cannot be said to have been made 'subject of an appeal' if the appeal has been disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal without passing an order under section 251(1) or 254(1) on merits." Mr. Ahuja submitted on the authority of the decisions of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 ; Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 272 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Milk Food Ltd. [2006] 280 ITR 331, that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes were binding upon the respondents and that they could not take a stand contrary to what....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incompetent or where the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order under appeal cannot be said to have been made the subject-matter of an appeal within the meaning of section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act. That clarification sets at rest the controversy whether an appeal dismissed as not maintainable can prevent the filing of a revision petition against the order that was challenged in such appeal. The clarifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in regard to the provisions of the Income-tax Act are applicable even to proceedings under the Gift-tax Act mutatis mutandis. In that view, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax was in error in holding that the revision petition filed by the petitioner before h....