TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (4) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revenue. The facts are like this. 3. The assessee is carrying on business as commission agents in textiles. On 19-1-1978, it has declared 202 high denomination notes under the High Denomination Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978. It had been stated in the said declaration that the money had been received in the usual course of its business as commission agents. At the time of assessment, it had been submitted before the ITO that the High Denomination notes formed part of its cash balance on the relevant date 19-1-1978 which was Rs. 2,19,852. It may be mentioned here that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 had been relied upon. The ITO was not inclined to accept the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction inasmuch as this was an assessment passed in accordance with the directions given by the IAC under section 144B and that such an assessment is not revisable under section 263. The other was that the explanation was eminently acceptable. The assessee was heard and on the question of jurisdiction the Commissioner held that the provisions of section 144B were procedural in nature and the directions of the IAC are only guidance to the ITO and that the final assessment made by the ITO is the proper order and that the assessment was, therefore, revisable under section 263. With regard to the explanation of the assessee, the Commissioner was of the view that the assessing officer should re-examine the matter ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion in the case of Jethwani to say that provisions of section 144B are procedural in nature. There is no doubt that the directions under section 144B are binding on the ITO and the later has to complete the assessment in terms of the instructions so given. But the point is whether an assessment so completed is still an assessment made by the ITO for the sake of section 263. The Special Bench decision in the case of East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. is in support of the argument put by Shri Trivedi. But, Shri Subramanian, arguing for the revenue, invited our attention to the Explanation added to section 263 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 which reads as follows : "Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said clause was made effective. Merely because the words 'for the removal of doubts' are found in the Explanation, it cannot be straightway inferred that the Explanation was clarificatory in nature. This is not an Explanation given in relation to a provision pertaining to procedural law. Further, section 263(1) deals with the powers of the Commissioner and it affect the rights of the parties whose assessments have been concluded by the assessing authority. In East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd.'s case the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise the ITO's order giving effect to the directions given by the IAC under section 144B has been specially considered. Once again, the Tribunal has in the case of Madanlal Chaganlal (P.) Ltd. ex....