2002 PLP 1527 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TIRUPUR KARUR TRANSPORTS (P.) LTD.,
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1527 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 242 I T R 648 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TIRUPUR KARUR TRANSPORTS (P.) LTD., |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1527 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1527 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 242 I T R 648 bench comprising: R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1527 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TIRUPUR KARUR TRANSPORTS (P.) LTD.,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Powers of CIT
Assessment made under S.144B on bass of direction of IAC
Assessment order can be revised
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.
263. The assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the direction issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is also amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section
263. CIT v. Shanmugham (V.V.A.) (1999) 236 ITR 878 (Mad.) fol. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. Miss Maya J. Nichani for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, J.
At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us for consideration: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that inasmuch as the assessment made under section 143(3) read with section 144B on the basis of the direction given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner cannot be subject-matter of revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax under sec- (2) Whether, on the facts and in- the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer merged in the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and on this ground setting aside the order under section 263 of the Commissioner of Income-tax? The year of assessment involved is 1979-80. The assessee is a private limited company which is running a transport business. The assessee-Company sold two buses. As per the direction from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer did not include the goodwill received as capital gains and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. The assessment was subsequently revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 with a direction to calculate the capital gains arising from the transfer of the route permit after ascertaining the cost of the acquisition of the asset. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Under the circumstances, the reference has been made at the instance of the Revenue to this Court. Counsel for the Revenue relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. V. V. A. Shanmugam '(1999) 236 ITR 878 (Mad.) wherein this Court has held that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the direction issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144A is also amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. Following the decision of this Court we hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax had got jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The questions referred to us are answered in favour of the Revenue. The Tribunal has not considered the merits of the case. The Tribunal has stated that since it has decided the appeal on the question of jurisdiction, it is not making any pronouncement on the merits of the case. In view of the finding of this Court in the decision rendered in CIT v. V.V.A. Shanmugam (1999) 236 ITR 878 that the Commissioner of Income-tax has got jurisdiction to pass orders under section 263 of the Act in respect of assessments under section 143(3) read with section 144B we direct the Tribunal to decide the case on the merits. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. M.B.A./717/FC Case remanded.