TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (7) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Government company, engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes and its parts, who is the respondent before us and was the petitioner before the learned judge, is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1970-71, relevant to the accounting year ending March 31, 1970, the assessee filed its return before the Income-tax Officer who on March 15, 1973, completed the assessment disallowing certain allowances claimed by it on certain grounds that are not necessary to notice. Against the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated October 27, 1976, partly allowed the same. Aggrieved by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merits. Aggrieved by this order of Chandrakantaraj Urs J., the Commissioner has filed this appeal before us. On an earlier occasion, this appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Venkatachalaiah and Rama Jois, JJ. who by their order made on June 14, 1982, doubting the correctness of a Division Bench ruling of this court in I.T.R.C. No. 37 of 1973 decided on September 17, 1975 (Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service's case [1986] 157 ITR 327), relied on by the appellant, referred the following question of law as arising in the appeal for the opinion of a Full Bench of this court (CIT v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 315, 318 (Kar) [FB]): " Can the Commissioner of Income-tax entertain the assessee's revision petition under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n support of his contention, Sri Sarangan strongly relies on the rulings of the Supreme Court in Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K. K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 913 and K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597. Earlier, we have noticed that the orders made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer had been subjected to an appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue which had decided the same in a particular manner. In Addl. CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service's case (I.T.R.C. No. 37 of 1973 [1986] 157 ITR 327), a Division Bench of this court had expressed that when an order had been subjected to an appeal, that order in its entirety merges in the order of that appellate authority. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat emerges from this is that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in its entirety had merged in the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, it was not open to the Commissioner to revise the same. In other words, what the Commissioner had really done was to follow the enunciation made by a Division Bench of this court in Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service's case [1986] 157 ITR 327, without, however, noticing the same which is now reiterated by a Full Bench of this court in the case. Unfortunately, the attention of the learned judge was not drawn, to Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service's case [1986] 157 ITR 327, which was binding on him and if it had been so done, we have no doubt that the learned judge would not have interfered with the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. We see no merit in this contention of Sri Sarangan. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order dated March 6, 1981 of Chandrakantaraj Urs J. and dismiss W.P. No. 4803 of 1979 [Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 461 (Kar)] filed by the respondent with no order as to costs both here and also before the learned judge. Orders on the oral application made by the respondent for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under articles 133 and 134A of the Constitution. Immediately after we completed our dictation allowing the appeal filed before us, Sri G. Sarangan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, makes an oral application for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Cour....