Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) Pursuant to the direction of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions were referred by the Tribunal : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment ?
(2.) Whether, in the light of the correct interpretation of the Act, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that investment allowance and additional depreciation are admissible on a computer installed by the assessee at their office premises during the relevant period for accounting purpose and maintenance of records ?" 2. The facts, as appear from the statement of case, briefly stated, are that the assessee-company for the assessment year 1983-84 was allowed investment allowance under Section 32A(1) and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on a computer purchased by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the said assessment year. The order of the Income-tax Officer was found by the Commissioner of Income-tax to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, revised the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment order. The Commissioner of Income-tax further issued certain guidelines for finding out if the assessee was entitled to investment allowance and additional depreciation.
(3.) Being aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal and contended that the assessment order was appealed against before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appeal was decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on January 17, 1984. The question of grant of investment allowance and additional depreciation on the computer, though not the subject-matter of appeal, could not survive as the entire assessment order merged in the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and as such there was no order of the Income-tax Officer which could be revised under Section 263. In support, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court in the case of General Beopar Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 86. The learned Departmental representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax.;