Commissioner passed the Revision order. On appeal, Tribunal placing reliance on its decision passed in earlier years, set aside order passed by Commissioner. On appeal Revenue contended that decision of Tribunal in earlier year was set aside by High Court in appeal and hence, revision order was just. High Court held that merely because order of Assessing Officer was passed relying upon order of Tribunal which was subsequently reversed by High Court could not justify order passed by Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. SLP of the Revenue is dismissed. (AY. 2009-10)
CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2025) 302 Taxman 369 (SC) Editorial : CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2021) 277 Taxman 215 (Karn)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Order passed by Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Tribunal-Subsequently set aside by High Court-Revision is not valid-Order of High Court is affirmed. [S. 32, 143(3), Art. 136]
Leave a Reply