Commissioner of Income Tax vs Farida Prime Tannery

Janarthanam, J.—The assessee is Farida Prime Tannery, Madras. For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessment was made on September 16, 1982, granting relief under Sections 80J and 80HH to the assessee.

The assessee appealed on certain other points and the appeal was disposed of by the appellate order dated May 4, 1984.

The Commissioner of Income Tax sought to revise the assessment u/s 265 on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of withdrawing the relief granted under Sections 80J and 80HH,

The Appellate Tribunal found that the relief granted under Sections 80J and 80HH being the subject of the assessment order itself, they were capable of being subject to enhancement by the appellate authority and to that extent, they had merged with the appellate order even before the Commissioner could revise the assessment order. u/s 263, the Commissioner could only interfere with the order of the Income Tax Officer and since it had merged with the appellate order, it was not available for being reviewed by the Commissioner. Hence, the Appellate Tribunal cancelled the order u/s 263 as being without jurisdiction.

It is on these facts, the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the question as below for the opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment can be considered to have merged with the appellate order and therefore no longer available for review u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"

Arguments of Mr. R. Sivaraman, learned counsel representing Mr. C.V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel, representing the applicant, and of Mr. Philip George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, were heard.

Sub-section (1) of Section 263, relevant for the purpose, is couched in the following terms :

"263. (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment."

From what has been extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that the Commissioner has powers of revision in respect of any order by the Assessing Officer subject to the conditions or parameters prescribed therein. The parameters prescribed are :

(i) The order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ; (ii) Before passing an order, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to provide an opportunity to the assessee of being heard ; and (iii) Option is also available to the Commissioner to make an enquiry as it deems necessary. If those conditions are satisfied, it is open to the Commissioner to pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment.

Explanation (c) appended to the said sub-section is relevant for the present purpose and it reads as under :

"Explanation,--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,--. ...

(c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject-matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal."

The interpretation of Explanation (c) appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 263 came to be considered in the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53; at the relevant portion of paragraph 3, at pages 413 and 414, which gets reflected as under (page 231 ITR 63 : "In Tax Reference Case No. 11 of 1983 ( COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax Vs. SHRI ARBUDA MILLS LTD., , this court after considering the effect of the amendment made in Section 263(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 1989, whereby Clause (c) of the Explanation was also amended with retrospective effect from June 1, 1988, held that (page 52): ''The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers u/s 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal. Accordingly, even in respect of the aforesaid three items, the powers of the Commissioner u/s 263 shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to them because those items had not been considered and decided in the appeal filed by the assessee''. In that case the assessment was completed on March 31, 1978, and the Income Tax Officer while computing loss and income of the assessee had accepted the claim of the asses-see in respect of those three items. Obviously, in the appeals filed by the assessee those items were not the subject-matter of the appeals as the decision in respect thereof was in its favour. In respect of those three items, the Commissioner had exercised his power u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the question which had arisen for consideration was (page 51) ''whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer u/s 143(3) read with Section 144B on July 31, 1978, had merged with that of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated December 15, 1979, in respect of the three items in dispute so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 ?'' Thus, the amendment made in Clause (c) was held applicable to the orders passed before June 1, 1988."

In the face of Explanation (c) as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as stated above, it goes without saying that the order of assessment cannot be said to have merged with the appellate order and, therefore, no longer available for review u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the question is answered accordingly.

This tax case is thus disposed of and there shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.