Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—At the instance of the assessee and the Department, the following questions of law have been referred to us for

the assessment year 1977-78, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench, Madras :

(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that, the Commissioner of

Income Tax had jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order passed by the Inspecting Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) in pursuance of the provisions of Section 125A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner of

Income Tax was competent to revise u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that part of the assessment order which did not form the subject-

matter of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee is entitled to

extra shift allowance in respect of the plant and machinery on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the entire concern ?

So far as the first question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee, is concerned, the issue raised in this case is covered against the

assessee by the judgment of this court in T. C. No. 1090 of 1980, dated January 7, 1997 ( Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.V.A.

Shanmugam, . Hence; we answer the first question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee in the negative (sic) and against the

assessee.

So far as the second question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee, is concerned, the same is also covered against the assessee

by a decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53

wherein, the Supreme Court held that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise the order of the Income Tax Officer though that order of

assessment is the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal. Following the said

decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the second question of law referred to us at the instance of assessee in the affirmative and against the

assessee.

In so far as the question of law referred to us at the instance of the Department is concerned, the issue is also covered against the Department

by a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inocme Tax, wherein it was held that the

assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of plant and machinery on the basis of number of days during which the concern had actually

worked double shift or triple shift and not a particular item of machinery or plant had worked double shift or triple shift, during the previous year.

We hold that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is correct. Hence, we answer the question of law referred to us at the instance of the Department

in the affirmative and against the Department. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.