CIT v. Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Revision under section 263 - Weighted deduction under section 35B -Validity
AO allowed weighted deduction to assessee-firm under section 35B on Rs. 5,63,350 instead of Rs. 8,90,676 as claimed by assessee. CIT by invoking section 263 held that claim allowed to assessee for weighted deduction was erroneous. Tribunal held that assessment order passed by AO merged with order of CIT (A) and, therefore, revisionary order passed by CIT was not justified. Held: Since, allowance of weighted deduction on Rs. 5,63,350 was not a subject-matter of appeal before CIT (A), therefore, doctrine of merger could not be applied by Tribunal to that part of order which was not a subject-matter of appeal so as to exclude revisional jurisdiction of Commissioner under section 263.
Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 263
A.Y. :1980-81
Decision: In favour of revenue.
Case Law Analysis:CIT v. P. Muncherji & Co. [1987] 167 ITR 671/ 32 Taxman 551 (Bom.) [Para 11], Ritz Ltd. v. Union of India [1990] 184 ITR 599/ 51 Taxman 320 (Bom.) [Para 13], CIT v. International Computers Indian Mfr. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 580/ 54 Taxman 184 (Bom.) [Para 13], CIT v. Godavari Sagar Mills Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 196/ 65 Taxman 260 (Bom.) [Para 13], CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (Bom.) 53 [Para13], Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 74/ 46 Taxman 142 (Cal.) [Para 14], Hamilton & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 568/ 57 Taxman 194 (Cal.) [Para 14], CIT v. Techno Electric & Engg. Co. [1994] 76 Taxman 212 (Cal.) [Para 14] CIT v. Printers House [1998] 233 ITR 666 (Delhi) [Para 15], CIT v. Mqqbool Alam & Co. [1998] 231 ITR 77/[1997] 95 Taxman 128 (Pat.) [Para 16] and CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 50/ 98 Taxman 457 (SC) [Para 18].