TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e [2005] 276 ITR 368). The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The respondent is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. It filed its return for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring its income at Rs. 26,66,355. The order of assessment was completed on or about March 10, 1995, under section 143(3) of the Act opining that the assessable income as against the assessee was Rs.35,40,414. The Commissioner of Income-tax invoked his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by setting aside the order of assessment excluding certain amounts towards transport receipts to the extent of a sum of Rs. 27,62,982 and interest amounting to Rs. 1,41,878 from the assessee's total income in the light of the provisions of section 80HH and section 80-I of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts opinion: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue of excess deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I contained in the order under section 143(3) was merged with the order under section 154 particularly when no rectification under section 154 was made in this regard? 3. Whether the view taken by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the Assessing Officer did not con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment." The scope and ambit of a proceeding for rectification of an order under section 154 and a proceeding for revision under section 263 are distinct and different. An order of rectification can be passed on certain contingencies. It does not confer a power of review. If an order of assessment is rectified by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 154 of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er had become final and binding on the parties, and the respondent could not question it in any way. As a matter of fact the Commissioner of Income-tax had made an application for a reference, which application was subsequently withdrawn. The Judicial Commissioner was not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal and we do not think that, in the circumstances of this case, it was open to him to say that the order of the Tribunal was wrong and, therefore, there was no injustice in disregarding that order. As we have said earlier, such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice." This principle has been laid down also in Dharam Chand Jain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 1433 stating: "The State Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, in our opinion, the same would not mean that the revisional authority shall be denuded of exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, would run counter to the scheme of the Act. The Tribunal relied on Vippy Solvex Products P. Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 587 (MP). Therein the question was determined in the light of the decision of this court in Smt. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49. The ratio of the said decision was not at all applicable. The High Court, thus, committed a manifest error in relying on the said decision. In Smt. S.R. Venkataraman, AIR 1979 SC 49, this court was concerned with an administrative order passed by a statutory authority. It is trite that when an authority having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in our opinion, be laid down. Each case is required to be considered on its own facts. In a given situation, the High Court may be held to be entitled to set aside both orders and remit the matter for consideration of the matter afresh. But in our opinion, it would not be correct to contend that only because a proceeding for rectification was initiated subsequently, the revisional jurisdiction could not have been invoked under any circumstances whatsoever. If such a proceeding was initiated, in our opinion, the contesting parties could bring the same to the notice of the Commissioner so as to enable him to take into consideration the subsequent events also. It goes without saying that if and when the Commissioner of Income-tax takes up fo....