← All Phrases

“doctrine of merger”

MiscellaneousDoctrine of MergerDoctrine of Merger303 judgments

The decision most relied on for doctrine of merger is Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (245 ITR 360), cited in 361 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on doctrine of merger

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2
2 SCC 453 · 1997 · Reported
222
citing judgments

When an appeal or revision is filed against an order passed by a subordinate forum, and a superior forum modifies, reverses, or affirms that decision, the order of the subordinate forum merges into the superior forum's decision, which then becomes the sole operative and enforceable order.

CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.
293 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 concerning matters not subject to reassessment begins from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not examined during reassessment proceedings.

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu
263 ITR 658 · 2003 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

The doctrine of merger applies when appellate jurisdiction is invoked, causing the operative part of a lower court's order or decree to merge into the superior court's order, whether it reverses, modifies, or affirms the original decision. The application of this doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of statutory provisions, and the subject matter challenged.

CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.
231 ITR 50 · 1998 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263, as clarified by Explanation (c) of Section 263(1) (retrospectively inserted by the Finance Act, 1989), extend to and are deemed always to have extended to matters that were not considered and decided in an appeal. This means the CIT can revise an order even if it was appealed, provided the specific issue under revision was not part of the appeal proceedings.

Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT
108 ITR 407 · 1977 · High Court
47
citing judgments

A revision order under section 263 is invalid if it is based solely on an audit objection without independent application of mind by the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer must apply their own mind rather than relying on audit party notes.

Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India
4 SCC 187 · 1989 · Reported
40
citing judgments

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in limine does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, nor does it confirm the view of the lower court.

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT
34 ITR 342 · 1958 · High Court
29
citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot enhance income on an issue that was not the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings. The appellate authority is empowered to decide any matter arising in the assessment proceedings, even if not raised in the appeal, provided it is covered by the order appealed against.

Judgments citing doctrine of merger

Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR
Section 54F

decision of Hon'ble Karnataka of SLP filed against the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which does not attracts the doctrine of merger High Court which does not attracts the doctrine of merger High Court which does not attracts the doctrine of merger so as to stand

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

limitation with reference to orders passed under section 143(3) by Assessing Officer - However, revenue's case was that in view of doctrine of merger, computation of period of limitation as provided in section 263(2) was to commence from date of passing of order of reassessment and not from ... revenue which related to lease equalization fund and proceedings for reassessment had Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai. nothing to do with said head of income, doctrine of merger would not apply in instant case - Held, yes - Whether since Commissioner in exercising its revisional jurisdiction reopened order of assessment in relation to lease

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 584/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

judgment has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment as in that case doctrine of merger wo as in that case doctrine of merger would come into uld come into play. This Court laid down the following principles:- play. This ... granted and the special leave petition is co leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine nverted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited of merger is not a doctrine

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 583/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

judgment has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment as in that case doctrine of merger wo as in that case doctrine of merger would come into uld come into play. This Court laid down the following principles:- play. This ... granted and the special leave petition is co leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine nverted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited of merger is not a doctrine

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 46/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

order, there is no jurisdictional defect; (viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (“Kunhayammed”), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave ... Delhi High Court have been approved by this Court in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014 (& other connected matters). Thus applying the doctrine of merger, the law laid down by the Delhi High Court has become a precedent under Article 141. (vi) The Respondent's case is squarely covered

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 45/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

order, there is no jurisdictional defect; (viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (“Kunhayammed”), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave ... Delhi High Court have been approved by this Court in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014 (& other connected matters). Thus applying the doctrine of merger, the law laid down by the Delhi High Court has become a precedent under Article 141. (vi) The Respondent's case is squarely covered

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 44/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

order, there is no jurisdictional defect; (viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (“Kunhayammed”), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave ... Delhi High Court have been approved by this Court in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014 (& other connected matters). Thus applying the doctrine of merger, the law laid down by the Delhi High Court has become a precedent under Article 141. (vi) The Respondent's case is squarely covered

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 43/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

order, there is no jurisdictional defect; (viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (“Kunhayammed”), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave ... Delhi High Court have been approved by this Court in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014 (& other connected matters). Thus applying the doctrine of merger, the law laid down by the Delhi High Court has become a precedent under Article 141. (vi) The Respondent's case is squarely covered

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 42/DEL/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

order, there is no jurisdictional defect; (viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (“Kunhayammed”), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave ... Delhi High Court have been approved by this Court in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014 (& other connected matters). Thus applying the doctrine of merger, the law laid down by the Delhi High Court has become a precedent under Article 141. (vi) The Respondent's case is squarely covered

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Addl.CIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 504/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

reasoning of the lower court or forum, there is no decision of the appellate court or forum. (as per para 19). The doctrine of merger is founded on principle of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system, the underlying logic being that there cannot be more than one operative

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. ACIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 503/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

reasoning of the lower court or forum, there is no decision of the appellate court or forum. (as per para 19). The doctrine of merger is founded on principle of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system, the underlying logic being that there cannot be more than one operative

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 502/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

reasoning of the lower court or forum, there is no decision of the appellate court or forum. (as per para 19). The doctrine of merger is founded on principle of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system, the underlying logic being that there cannot be more than one operative

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 501/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

reasoning of the lower court or forum, there is no decision of the appellate court or forum. (as per para 19). The doctrine of merger is founded on principle of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system, the underlying logic being that there cannot be more than one operative

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 500/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

reasoning of the lower court or forum, there is no decision of the appellate court or forum. (as per para 19). The doctrine of merger is founded on principle of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system, the underlying logic being that there cannot be more than one operative

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The Dy.CIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1935/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

reasoning of the lower court or forum, there is no decision of the appellate court or forum. (as per para 19). The doctrine of merger is founded on principle of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system, the underlying logic being that there cannot be more than one operative

Agroh Infrastructure Developers P Ltd, Mhow vs. Pr CIT Central Circle Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

aside by the Ld. CIT the same has merged with the subsequent order dated 31st July 2017. However, the said doctrine of merger would not apply beyond the subject matter of revision order dated 15.03.2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra ... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The proceedings for reassessment have nothing to do with the said head of income. Doctrine of merger, therefore, would not apply in a case of this nature. 8. Furthermore, Explanation (c) appended to Sub-section (1) of Section

M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT-2, Jaipur has further erred in passing the impugned order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the doctrine of merger as impugned order was already adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) prior to the initiation of revision proceedings, thus the impugned order deserves ... challenged the action of ld. PCIT in revising the order passed by ld.AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, by ignoring the doctrine of merger, as entire assessment order was challenged in appeal, which was already decided vide order dated 31.01.2018, i.e. prior to initiation of revision proceedings. In ground

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

were in respect of the matters other than the allowance of 'lease equalization fund'. The said finding of fact is binding on us. Doctrine of merger, therefore, in the fact situation obtaining herein cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. It is not a case where the subject-matter ... reassessment had nothing to do with the said 17 Assessment Years: 2017-18 head of income. The Supreme Court clearly held that the doctrine of merger was not attracted to a case of that nature. The Supreme Court followed its earlier judgment in CIT v. Sun Engg

M/S K.M. Khadim & Co., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

which the issue of lease equalization fund was not the subject matter and the Hon’ble Court has, therefore, held that doctrine of merger did not apply in the case of this nature and the period of limitation commences from the date of original assessment and not from the date

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

perspective. 4. The order of the AO has merged with the proceedings before the first Appellate authority, which is pending and applying the doctrine of merger there is no jurisdiction for the PCIT to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the ACT. 5. In view of the above grounds ... proceedings and the requisite details were furnished by the assessee in support of its claim. Another argument raised by Ld. AR is that doctrine of merger would apply since the assessment order is subject matter of challenge before first appellate authority on legal grounds as well as on merits. Therefore