Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.251 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Patna 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6, Patna 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6, Patna .... .... Appellants Versus 1. Syed Jamilur Rahman, Doomri Kothi Exhibition Road, Patna (Status- Individual), Pan No. AANPR 4215 P .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha JSC Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, JSC For the Respondent/s : Mr. D. V. Pathy, advocate Mr. Uttam Kumar Mishra, advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 7 19-04-2012 Heard the parties. The first order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) dated 13-05-2003 [STATUTE] (3) of the Income Tax Act was interfered with by the Commissioner Income Tax in exercise of powers [STATUTE] ’s order dated 21/24th March, 2006 the A.O. was required to refer the valuation matter to District Valuation Committee at Kanpur. On account of directions in the Commissioner’s order the A.O. assumed jurisdiction to pass a fresh order dated 29-12-2006 [STATUTE] (3) of the Act but the assessee who was dissatisfied with order of the Commissioner dated 21/24th March, 2006 preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench bearing ITA No. 105/PAT/06 which was allowed on 15-02-2007. The Tribunal cancelled the order passed by Commissioner, Income Tax and as a Patna High Court MA No.251 of 2010 (7) dt.19-04-2012 2 / 2 2 result the order of the A.O. dated 13-05-2003 attained finality. However, as a consequence of order of the Commissioner the A.O. had proceeded and had passed another order dated 29-12-2006. This time also the A.O. could not obtain the report of the District Valuation Committee and hence, the Commissioner again exercised power [STATUTE] matter back to A.O. with directions. The assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the Commissioner’s order dated 30-03-2009. By the order under appeal the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on account of its earlier orders. The wordings used by the Tribunal are not very happy and appropriate but the Tribunal, in our view, had to interfere against the order of the Commissioner, Income Tax because in our view when the department accepted the order passed by the Tribunal on the first occasion, that is, on 15-02-2007 the first order passed by the A.O. under 143(3) dated 13-05-2003 attained finality and all further proceedings held as a consequence to order of the Commissioner which was ultimately set aside by the Tribunal on 15-02-2007 have to be treated as nonest. Since the order of the Commissioner was cancelled by the Tribunal on 15-02-2007, the consequences of that order of the Commissioner must also be set at naught. That is the effect of the order under appeal. In the facts of the case, we find no good ground or any substantial question of law to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Vikash Jain, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 263

Statute Text:
Section 263 of the Indian Penal Code. Erasure of mark denoting that stamps have been used. Whoever, fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to Government, erases or removes from a stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, any mark, put or impressed upon such stamp for the purpose of denoting that the same has been used, or knowingly has in his possession or sells or disposes of any such stamp from which such mark has been erased or removed, or sells or disposes of any such stamp which he knows to have been used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.