Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, relating to the assessment of the assessee's income for the asst. yr. 1978-79 reads as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the ITO had merged in the order of the CIT(A) and the CIT had no jurisdiction to exercise his power under s. 263 in respect of the claim for weighted deduction on the expenditure of Rs. 2, 58, 187 ?" 2. The point raised in the tax case reference is whether the CIT has jurisdiction under s. 263 of the IT Act to consider a matter which was considered by the ITO, but was not considered by the CIT(A), though the order of the ITO was appealed and was considered by the said appellate authority. The Tribunal held that the CIT has no jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act as the entire order of ITO had merged with the order of first appellate authority, even on points not considered by him. 3. An Explanation 'c' to s. 263 of the Act was introduced with retrospective effect enabling the CIT to exercise his revisional jurisdiction over the orders of the ITO in respect of matters which had not been considered and decided in appeal by the first appellate authority. The said Explanation was introduced by the Finance Act, 1988. The position after the amendment is clear that the CIT has the necessary jurisdiction to exercise the power under s. 263 of the Act over such an order of ITO. The apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works referred to earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (Tax Case No. 11 of 1983), wherein the Supreme Court held that in respect of items which were not the subject-matter of consideration by the appellate authority, the CIT has the necessary power under s. 263 of the Act to revise the order of the ITO. In view of the Explanation under s. 263 of the Act and the decision of the apex Court cited above, the view of the Tribunal that the order of the ITO had merged in the order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to revise that part of the order is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.