TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the Commissioner of Income-tax vide his order dated March 30, 1987, under section 263? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer as the issue of investment allowance was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) prior to the order under section 263? In support of the application it is submitted by Shri H. S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the assessee, that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not referring the matter to this court though substantial questions of law do arise in the present case. It is urged by him that initially the assessment order was passed on March 1, 1985, and an appeal was preferred by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order is set aside the said conclusion has to be read in harmony with the conclusion arrived at in the earlier paragraph. The revisional authority had not dealt with the facet which had already been dealt with by the appellate authority, but with other spectrums which were dealt with by the Assessing Officer. It is fairly conceded by him that the Department, being aware of the legal position, has not worked out the aforesaid order passed under section 263 of the Act. It is contended by him that the order is neither an open nor partial, remand but a further clarificatory order, and therefore, the directions contained in the appellate order can be given effect to. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we have perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead 'Lease rent'. The Income-tax Officer allowed investment allowance on well and tank costing Rs. 1,42,086 and trolley Rs. 5,15,591, which being not in the nature of plant, investment allowance of Rs. 1,64,490 was therefore wrongly allowed." The assessee appeared before the Commissioner and the Commissioner found that lease rent amounting to Rs. 1,10,89,617 has been worked out only as per the formulae of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, and hence, the Income-tax Officer had not erred in allowing the same and his order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. That apart the Commissioner dealt with the amount/sum of Rs. 1,64,490. In that context, the revisional authority came to hold as under: "Regarding inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and decide the issue of investment allowance on wells, tanks and trolleys afresh in accordance with law." Eventually, the Commissioner of Income-tax held as follows: "In view of the above discussions, the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer is considered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the order of assessment is set aside and the Income-tax Officer is directed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He will also keep in view my observations in this order while making the assessment afresh." Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel has submitted that the order of the revisional authority is quite cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de. It is a settled position of law that for understanding the correct purport of the order for drawing a correct conclusion the order of any authority should be read in toto. It cannot be read piecemeal for drawing a different conclusion. In the entire order the Commissioner of Income-tax has discussed two issues which were considered by him to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and with respect of these issues, he has set aside the assessment order with the direction to make fresh assessment after making proper verification. He did not discuss the other issues discussed by the Assessing Officer in its assessment order. As such, we are of the view that the entire assessment order was not set aside. 5. We do not f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)." It is not in dispute that the assessee preferred an application under section 256(1), which stood rejected. The crux of the matter is whether by virtue of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in revision, the order of assessment is nullified in entirety. We have scanned both the orders. It is not disputed by Mr. Shrivastava that the investment allowance was the subject-matter of revision before the Commissioner. In view of this, we are of the considered opinion that by virtue of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the order of assessment was not totally put to naught or stood cancelled. It was not an order which nullified the order of assessment in totality. C....