High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery
Section 263
Asst. Year 1980-81
V.S. Sirpurkar & N.V. Balasubramanian, JJ.
TC No. 829 of 1990
7th August, 2002
JUDGMENT
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :
The only question that falls for consideration in the reference is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT had no jurisdiction under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, to revise the assessment for the year 1980-81.
The assessment proceedings were taken against the assessee and the assessment was completed by the ITO. It seems, against that assessment order there was an appeal filed before the CIT(A) on the question of admissible deduction under ss. 35B, 80J and 80HH of the IT Act. There is no dispute that the CIT (A) considered all the questions and disposed of the appeal by his order dt. 4th Aug., 1984. However, the CIT, on the other hand, felt that the deductions were not proper under ss. 80J and 80HH as also under s. 35B of the IT Act. He therefore directed an action under s. 263 of the Act. He corrected the order passed by the ITO in his revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal, however, realised that against the order of assessment passed by the ITO, there was already an appeal and the appeal was also on the same issues on which the revision under s. 263 was initiated by the CIT. In that view, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT passed in his revisional jurisdiction. It is how the matter has come up before us at the instance of the Revenue on the question mentioned above.
We have perused the appellate order which was produced before us and even a cursory glance at the same suggests that the issues regarding the allowable deduction under ss. 35B, 80J and 80HH have been thoroughly checked by the CIT(A) and the findings have been given thereupon. It is clear from the express language of s. 263 that issues on which the appellate authority had already deliberated the matter could not be reopened by way of revision. Learned counsel for the Department also fairly brings to our notice a judgment reported in CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 147 CTR (SC) 474 : (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC), which supports the view taken by us.
In that view, we answer the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
[Citation : 259 ITR 342]
