CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsFull Bench(2004) 12 AHC CK 0221

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur vs Smt. Kiran Jaiswal

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 1 December 2004 · Citation: (2006) 153 TAXMAN 399

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Agrawal, J · Prakash Krishna, J
CASE NUMBER
IT Reference No. 158 of 1988 1 December 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 346 words

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has refer-red the following question of law u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', for opinion to this Court:

"Whether in law and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the order of the I.A.C. (Asst.) could not be revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his powers u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby setting aside the order u/s 263 passed by him?''

In favour of revenue.

2.

The reference relates to the assessment year 1978-79.

3.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are that for the assessment year in question the assessment was completed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) on 30-1-1982. The Commissioner of Income Tax after examining the records of the case found that no penalty proceeding u/s 273(b) of the Act was initiated nor interest u/s 217 of the Act was charged. He was, therefore, of the opinion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) to charge interest u/s 217 of the Act and to initiate proceedings u/s 273(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has accepted the submission made by the respondent that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) before the Explanation was added w.e.f. 1-10-1984.

4.

We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the revenue. None has appeared for the respondent.

5.

It may be mentioned here that the Explanation added to sub-section (1) of section 263 with effect from 1-10-1984 has been held to have the retrospective operation is held by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Calcutta Vs. U.C. Mehatab, . Even otherwise, this court in ITR No. 148 of 1984, CIT (Central), Kanpur v. Sri Surendra Prasad Agrawal, Allahabad