The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax has concurrent jurisdiction with the Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of revisionary powers under Sections 263 and 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

( 1 ) THE only question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is with respect to the notice dated 16-9-1970 issued by an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax to the petitioner revising an order dated 23-12-1969 made by the Income-tax Officer District VI (6) in purported exercise of the power of the Additional Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

( 2 ) THE contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that such an order could only be made by the Commissioner and not by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. It appears that before the Finance Act of 1970 was passed by Parliament there were the following classes of Income-

(A) the Central Board of Direct Taxes constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, (b) Directors of Inspection, (c) Commissioners of Income-tax, (d) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, who may be either Appellate Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax or Inspecting Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax, (e) Income-tax Officers, and (f) Inspectors of Income-tax.

( 3 ) BY that Act Section 116 was amended by the substitution of the following clause for (c ). namely;-

" (C) Commissioners of Income-tax and Additional Commissioners of Income-tax. "

( 4 ) SECTION 117 was also amended by the insertion of the words "additional Commissioners of Income-tax" after the words "directors of Inspection, Commissioners of Income-tax" in sub-section (1 ). In place of S. 130 the following new section was ordered to be substituted, namely :- "130. Commissioner competent to perform any functions-

(1) In respect of any function to be performed by Commissioner under any provision of this Act in relation to an assessee, the Commissioner referred to therein shall- (a) in a case where only one Commissioner has jurisdiction over such assessees, be such Commissioner; (b) in a case where two or more Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction over such assessee, be the commissioner empowered to perform such function by the Board. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) for the purposes of sections 253, 254, 256, 263 and 264, the Commissioner referred to therein shall, in relation to an assessee, be the Commissioner having for the time being jurisdiction over the assessee. "

( 5 ) THE petitioner is a co-operative society and its members are themselves co-operative societies at the state levels. For the assessment year 1965-66 (accounting period 1-7-1963 to 30-6-1964) the petitioner submitted under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 a return of its total income. In the return filed by the petitioner, in Part I of section of the return it claimed exemption of business profits amounting to Rs. 6,16,213/8 under the provisions of Section 8l (1) (c) and Section 83 of. the Income-tax Act. 1961, The petitioner also furnished statements of profit and loss, balance sheet etc. along with the return. It also produced all account books before the Income-tax Officer and claimed exemption from tax. The Income-tax Officer accepted the claim and made no assessment by his order dated 23-12-1969.

( 6 ) BY a letter dated 22-6-1970 the Income-tax Officer made certain inquiries and called upon the petitioner to state the nature and details of the imports made during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66 with break up of sales of each commodity and also asked for details regarding the sale of agricultural produce made by the members of the Society who were engaged in agricultural operations. It was also stated in that letter that the provisions of Section 81 (1) (c) or Section 83 could not be invoked to claim exemption.

( 7 ) BY letter dated 20-7-1970 the petitioner reiterated the facts and claimed that the entire income was exempt fromIncome-tax. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make any inquiry was also challenged on the ground that the assessment had become final and no revision or re-assessment could be made by mere change of opinion.