HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

(2.) For the asst. yr. 1970-71 relating to the financial year ending 31-3-1969, the petitioner filed an appeal before the AAC of It against the assessment order of the ITO. The appeal was on several grounds relating to several aspects of the assessment order with which the assessee was aggrieved. The appeal came to be partly allowed and partly disallowed by the AAC by his order dt. 27-10-1976. Petitioner assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AAC, to the extent the appeal was disallowed, before the Tribunal at Bangalore. The appeal before the Tribunal came to be withdrawn with the permission of the Tribunal on 9-5-1977 and on 17-5-1977 a revision application came to the filed u/s 264 of the Act before the CIT, Karnataka, Bangalore the respondent herein - against the order of the AAC to the extent the assessee petitioner was dissatisfied with that order. In the meanwhile the Department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the AAC in so far as related to some aspects of the success of the assessee. That appeal of the Department came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 28-3-1978. The respondent - Commr. by his order dt. 22-12-1978, having regard the Ruling of Kerala High Court in the case of Mohammed Haneef v. ITO, Quilion and others (1973) Tax 645 (Ker) dismissed the revision petition of the assessee-petitioner as not competent and maintainable. Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution for redress.

(3.) It is petitioner's contention that sub-s. 4(c) of s. 264 of the Act is no bar for the assessee to maintain a revision petition against the order of the AAC in so far as it affects the assessee even though the Department may subject that order in so far as it favours the assessee to an appeal before the Tribunal notwitstanding the decision of the Kerala High Court in Mohammed Haneef's case which has not laid down the correct law in regard to scope and ambit of revisional power of the Commr. u/s 264 of the Act.