Law: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)

Section:

Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 33-A & 33-B--Revision Commissioner's powers of revision under S. 33-B-Whether Commissioner can exercise his powers when appeal is pending before Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Difference between S. 33-A and S. 33-B.   The Commissioner may under section 33-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 revise an order of the Income-tax Officer even when an appeal is pending from that order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.   Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (953) 23 I T R 420 (Bom.) not fol.   Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala (1953) 23 I T R 412 (Bom.) distinguished.   Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (1958) 34 I T R 130 (S C) and Sm. Durgabati and Sm. Narmadabala Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1956) 30 I T R 101 (Pat.) ref. JUDGMENT   SINHA, C. J.-This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal in the circumstances following;   Ramlal Onkarmal, Powai, who will be hereafter referred to as the assessee, is a Hindu undivided family, having shares in the following two unregistered firms;   12 annas share in Ramlal Onkarmal.   8 annas share in Durgapur Tea Estate.   In the assessment completed on June 21, 1954; under section 23 (3) for the R. N. Year 2009, for the assessment year 1953-54, the Income-tax Officer included the following shares from the aforesaid firms;   Ramlal Onkarmal Profit Rs. 38,392 ; Durgapur Tea Estate Loss 32,759   In arriving at the assessment, the Income-tax Officer made a deduction of Rs. 32,759 representing loss in the DurgapurTea Estate and after this deduction was made, the total income :calculated was Rs. 18,656 on which the income-tax was levied for the assessment year 1953-54.   The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on August 28, 1954, which was decided on September 15, 1956. While the above appeal was pending decision, the Commissioner of Income-tax on examina tion of the record found that the above Income-tax Officer's order was prejudicial to revenue and…