2002 PLP 1258 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SIMCO METERS LIMITED.
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1258 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 241 I T R 511 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SIMCO METERS LIMITED. |
| Primary Law | (a) Income-tax, (b) Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1258 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Income-tax, (b) Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1258 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 241 I T R 511 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 1258 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SIMCO METERS LIMITED.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Powers of CIT
CIT can revise matter not agitated in appeal
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.263.
Investment allowance
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-- Manufacture of electric meters
Order withdrawing investment allowance in revision proceedings
Tribunal erroneously setting aside order of revision on ground of jurisdiction
Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide case on merits
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32A(2)(b), 254 &
263. The assessee which was a manufacturer of power supply meter equipment, claimed investment allowance for installing new machinery. Though the assessee had filed an appeal against the assessment, investment allowance was not one of the grounds in respect of which the appeal had been filed. The Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance since the manufacture of meter did not amount to generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power referred to in section 32A(2)(b) of the Act and that meters were also not covered by item No.5 of the Ninth Schedule which refers to thermal and hydro power generation equipment. .The Tribunal set aside the order on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order in view of the fact that the order of assessment had merged with the order on appeal. On a reference: Held, (i) that the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is unaffected by any appellate order, if the subject-matter of the appeal was not the subject-matter of the revision. C.W.T. v. Mehatab (U.C.) (1998) 231 ITR 501 (SC) fol. (ii) That the Tribunal had not gone into the correctness of the order of the Commissioner on the merits. (Tribunal directed to examine assessee's case on merits). C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.
The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are as follows: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in entertaining a new ground not taken at any stage of the proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to cancel an order under that section of the Commissioner of Income-tax? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), which was the subject-matter of the revision order under section 263 had merged in the order of the appellate authority?" The assessment year is 1977-78. The assessee is a manufacturer of power supply meter equipment, who claimed investment allowance for installing new machinery. Though the assessee had filed an appeal against the assessment, investment allowance was not one of the grounds in respect of. which the appeal had been filed. The Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance since the manufacture of meters does not amount to generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power referred to in section 32A(2)(b) of the Act and that meters are also not covered by item No.5 of the IXth Schedule which refers to thermal and hydro power generation equipment. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order in view of the fact that the order of assessment had merged with the order of the appeal. That view of the Tribunal is plainly untenable and is not in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court in CWT v. U.C. Mehatab (1998) 231 ITR 501, wherein it has been held by the apex Court that the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is unaffected by any appellate order, if the subject-matter of the appeal was not the subject-matter of the revision. The ground referred to in the first question is the ground that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised if the original order has merged with the order in appeal. Such a ground is only a question of law which it was open to the assessee to raise, and it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to have allowed that question to be raised. The Tribunal, however, has not gone into the correctness of the order of the Commissioner on the merits. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to examine the assessee's case on the merits. Our answer to the second question is, therefore, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Though the first question is in favour of the assessee that is of no help to the assessee, in view of our answer to the second question. No costs. M.B.A./618/FC Reference answered.