Orissa H.C : This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, against the order of refusal by the Tribunal refusing to state a case under s. 256(1) of the Act.

High Court Of Orissa

Umashankar Rice Mill vs. CIT

Sections 263, 256, 256(2)

S.C. Mohapatra & J.M. Mahapatra, JJ.

S.J.C. No. 74 of 1986

20th July, 1990 

Counsel Appeared

Ray, for the Assessee : Sovesh Ray, for the Revenue

C. MOHAPATRA ,J.:

This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, against the order of refusal by the Tribunal refusing to state a case under s. 256(1) of the Act.

2. The CIT exercised power under s. 263 of the Act. The petitioner’s grievance is that power under s. 263 ought not to have been exercised when there was an exhaustive enquiry by the ITO before making assessment and, in any case, the ITO had power under s. 147 to reopen the assessment for reasons as indicated in that section.

3. Mr. A. K. Ray submitted that an interpretation of s. 263 is involved in this case for which a statement ought to be called for. Learned Advocate General who is also standing counsel for the Department submitted that where the Legislature has not put any restriction to the power under s.263 of the IT Act, on the language of that section which is clear, no question of law arises out of the order especially when the Tribunal, after careful consideration of the entire material, held that the CIT was justified in exercising the power.

We are inclined to accept what Mr. Sovesh Ray has submitted. In the circumstances, the power under s. 263 of the IT Act being available to be exercised by the CIT since on the basis of some materials available on record, the CIT felt that there should be further enquiry.

We are not inclined to accept this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

J.M. MAHAPATRA J.:

I agree.

[Citation : 187 ITR 638]

Malcare WordPress Security