- (1.) FOR the assessment year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on March 19, 1982. The Commissioner of Income-tax called for the record of the case and found that the business loss of Rs. 30,000 was determined, after adjusting deductions under Section 80j of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short "the Act"), and was allowed to be carried forward. He also took note of certain other infirmities and issued notice under Section 263 of the Act. By order dated March 5, 1984, the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was set aside with a direction to make fresh assessment oh re-examining the points contained in paras 7 to 10 of his order. The assessee challenged the order in appeal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, came to the conclusion that no firm conclusions were arrived at by the Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction, and therefore, it could not be said that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and that was one of the prerequisites for revisional jurisdiction. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax was set aside. On these facts, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Revenue : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in vacating the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ludhiana, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"
(2.) WE have gone through the order of the Commissioner. In para 7, the contention on behalf of the assessee to the effect that the business of dehusking of paddy was a manufacturing process and three judgments of the Supreme Court cited in this behalf were noticed and the conclusion of the Commissioner was as follows : "it is observed that these decisions have some relevance with the point at issue. However, whether they apply squarely 'to the facts of this case is to be examined. "
(3.) IN para 8, the default of not filing a report prescribed under Sub-section (6a) of Section 80j of the Act along with the return was noticed. Learned counsel for the assessee had offered to file the same at that stage. The Commissioner left the matter undecided with the following observations : "it is doubtful whether this report, which was required to be filed with the return of income and for which omission the assessee has no reasonable and sufficient cause, can now be entertained. ";