Supreme Court of India
T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)180CTR(SC)307, [2003]260ITR82(SC), (2003)9SCC235, AIRONLINE 2003 SC 129, 2003 (9) SCC 235, (2003) 260 ITR 82, (2003) 180 CUR TAX REP 307, (2003) 129 TAXMAN 69
Bench: Ruma Pal, B.N. Srikrishna
ORDER
PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER" OCCURRING IN SECTION 263 Catch Note:
There is no scope for limiting phrase "order passed by Income Tax Officer" in section 263 to exclude orders passed by Income Tax Officer on directions of a superior authority either under section 144A or 144B.
Ratio:
There is no scope for limiting phrase "order passed by Income Tax Officer" in section 263 to exclude orders passed by Income Tax Officer on directions of a superior authority either under section 144A or 144B. Application:
Also to current assessment year.
Decision:
In favour of revenue.
Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 ORDER
1. The question which had been referred to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read as follows :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise an order passed by the Income-tax Officer with the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B?"
2. The power to revise orders of the Income-tax Officer under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was sought to be limited by the appellant-assessee by contending that the phrase "order passed by the Income-tax Officer" in Section 263 excluded those orders passed by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the directions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B which was then included in the Act.
3. The High Court in its decision has followed its earlier decision in which it had referred to and relied upon the reasoning of several other High Courts on the same issue to negative the contentions of the assessee.
4. Given the uniformity of interpretation by the several High Courts, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the decision of the High Court.
5. In any event we are of the view that having regard to the subsequent amendments to the Act issued from time to time there was no scope for limiting the phrase "order passed by the Income-tax Officer" in Section 263 to exclude orders passed by the Income-tax Officer on the directions of a superior authority either under Section 144A or 144B.
6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.