MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE rule.

(2.) DESPITE opportunities granted to Mr. Jolly to file a counter -affidavit to this writ petition, the needful has not been done. Mr. Jolly, on the contrary, submits that since the question arising for consideration is purely legal in character, the filing of a counter was unnecessary. He has accordingly argued the writ petition for final disposal.

(3.) APPEARING for the petitioner, Mr. Ahuja, learned senior counsel argued that the CIT/CGT had erred in holding that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. He submitted that the Commissioner was palpably wrong in taking the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order on the merits of the case in the appeal filed by the petitioner. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not touched the merits of the case as the appeal had been dismissed as not maintainable. Any such order of dismissal was not tantamount to an order passed on the merits of the case. There was in that view, no legal impediment maintaining a revision petition against the order passed by the assessing officer. In support, he placed reliance upon a circular issued by the CBDT (Circular No. 367, dated 26 -7 - 1983) which is to the following effect :