Mind Tree Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Mindtree Consulting P. Ltd.) vs Commissioner of Income Tax

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the assessee being aggrieved by the order dated September 26, 2011, passed by the income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "B" in I.T.A. No. 678/Bang/2010 (assessment year 2005-06) in partly allowing the appeal. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year is 2005-06. The assessee is aggrieved that the Tribunal even while allowing the appeal has only remanded the matter to the original Assessing Officer while setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of income tax acting as a revisional authority and, therefore, the present appeal.

The assessee has sought to raise the following substantial questions of law :

A. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding the action of the respondent u/s 263 when the mandatory conditions for exercise of revisionary powers did not exist ?

B. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable Tribunal was right in law in remanding the case of the appellant to the learned Assessing Officer when the issue on the merits is decided in favour of the appellant by the honourable income tax Appellate Tribunal ?

Mr. Chythanya K.K., Learned Counsel for the appellant-assessee, has taken us through the order under appeal and has highlighted the question in issue and has made elaborate submissions to impress upon us that if this Court is convinced that the Commissioner could not have invoked his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 in the given situation, the position will be that even the remand order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and, therefore, the matter warrants interference, notwithstanding the subject-matter ordering the Tribunal is one remanding the case to the assessing authority for a de novo examination of the issue involved, namely, the question examined by the Commissioner for exercising his revisional jurisdiction.

The submission of the Learned Counsel is that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the order of the Commissioner was wrong for the reason that the assessment order was not one which was erroneous. It is on the premise, the submission is made to the effect that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to invoke his revisional power u/s 263.

We are not very much convinced about the submission that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction in invoking his revisional jurisdiction. The order of the Commissioner may be wrong. But it does not necessarily mean that all wrong orders are situations invoking want of jurisdiction.

Whether the Assessing Officer''s view on the aspect on which the Commissioner thought it fit to exercise his revisional jurisdiction suffered from any error in law or was erroneous, has become a matter of academic importance now, as the Tribunal in its wisdom remanded the matter to the original authority and it is only after the assessing authority opines one way or other there may be scope for further development. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the remand order passed by the Tribunal and do not see any substantial questions of law which are decided wrongly by the Tribunal requiring examination in this appeal. We do not see any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.