C I T BIKANER vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR BANSAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of the CIT (Administration). The Court reasoned that once an assessment order is subjected to an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and an order is passed by the appellate authority, the original assessment order merges with the appellate order. Consequently, the CIT (Administration) cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 over matters that have already been decided by the appellate authority. Such an exercise of power would be against the hierarchy of statutory authorities. The Court found that the CIT (Administration) had no jurisdiction to hold that a part of the order which merged in the appellate order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The contention regarding the hearing by a Division Bench was deemed irrelevant as the order of the CIT (Administration) was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue fails.
What were the facts?
The assessee is Pramod Kumar Bansal and the revenue is CIT Bikaner. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not specified. The order under challenge is the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Administration) passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and directed a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer had made certain additions, which were partially relieved by the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Administration) then invoked Section 263. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) set aside the order of the CIT (Administration). The present appeal is filed by the revenue against the Tribunal's order dated 08.07.2005.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be exercised by the CIT (Administration) over an assessment order that had merged with the appellate order passed by the CIT (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the Tribunal's reasoning, which the High Court upholds, implies that once an assessment order is appealed and an appellate order is passed, the original assessment order merges with the appellate order. Therefore, the CIT (Administration) cannot reopen matters already decided by the appellate authority. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the appeal against the order under Section 263 could have been heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal and not a Single Bench, implying the Tribunal's order was procedurally flawed. The revenue likely argued that the CIT (Administration) had the power to revise the assessment order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 9 D.B. CIVIL INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.98/2006 . [CIT BIKANER VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BANSAL] DATED :15/12/2006. HON'BLE MR. RAJESH BALIA, J. HON'BLE MR. GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS J. Mr.K.K.Bissa for the appellant. ***** Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. From the facts it is apparent that the order of assessing officer by which certain additions have been made were subjected to appeal and the assessee was granted certain reliefs by the CIT [Appeals]. After the appeal was decided the CIT [Administration] exercised its power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and set aside the entire order of assessing officer and directed him to re-frame the whole assessment denovo. On appeal against the order under Section 263 the Tribunal found that once the order of assessment was subjected to appeal and the order was passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, the order of the assessing officer stood merged in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The entire assessment could not have been reopened. At best, the CIT [Administration] could exercise his power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act only in respect of matters which were not subject matters of appeal and were beyond it. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner was set aside.
2 Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 08.07.2005 this appeal has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal against the order under Section 263 could have been heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal and not by Single Bench. Hence, this order of Tribunal cannot be sustained. However, we find that there cannot be two opinions on exercising of revisional jurisdiction by the CIT [Administration]. It has no jurisdiction to hold that part of the order which merged in the appellate order to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue when the same has been decided by the Appellate Authority in appeal against the assessment order . It is against all canons of discipline of amongst hierarchy of statutory authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT [Administration] being apparently without jurisdiction, it cannot be said that merely because of the forum of hearing by Division Bench gives rise to any substantial question of law, having any being on the ultimate outcome of the case. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS],J. [RAJESH BALIA], J. mamta
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kallu Cable vs. The Commissioner State Goods And Service TaxUttarakhand · 5 Nov 2026
- Jishu Suklabaidya vs. The Union Of INDIA And 16 Ors.Gauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sun Shine Metal Works vs. State Of U.P And AnotherAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Bansal Sanitary Store vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Princess Girls Collection vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026