Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 77 of 1975
Judge
Reported in[1985]151ITR532(Guj)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 84, 253 and 254
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
RespondentCellulose Products of India Ltd.
Appellant Advocate K.H. Kaji, Adv.
Respondent Advocate J.P. Shah, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....must be held that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise this particular point regarding computation for the purpose of s. 84. this question must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative, since the case falls within one of the categories mentioned in steel cast corporation's case : [1977]107itr683(guj) , where the tribunal was held to have jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise another aspect of the same case for mere computation regarding the point which had the same case for mere computation regarding the point which had already been raised before the ito or the aac. 3. question no. 2 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. the commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the.....
Judgment:

Divan, C.J.

1. In this case at the instance of the Revenue, two questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal. The first out of these two questions is directly covered by the decision of this High Court in CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., (Income-tax Reference No. 19 of 1971, decided on September 11/12, 1973 - : [1976]104ITR510(Guj) ). In view of that decision question No. 1 must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

2. As regards question No. 2, the main question is regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow the assessee to raise an additional ground for the first time before it even though it was not raised before the AAC and to restore the appeal to the AAC for fresh adjudication and whether it had jurisdiction to restore the appeal to the AAC. We find, as regards question No. 2, that the question regarding relief under s. 84 had been raised before the ITO and the AAC and the main question which the Tribunal has directed for reconsideration is regarding the computation for the purpose of s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961. There is no question of altogether a new point being taken up but merely the computation (of relief) on another aspect of the case which was already before the ITO and the AAC, was allowed to be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, following CIT v. Steel Cast Corporation (Income-tax Reference No. 72 of 1974, decided by this court on December 17, 1975 - : [1977]107ITR683(Guj) ), it must be held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise this particular point regarding computation for the purpose of s. 84. This question must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative, since the case falls within one of the categories mentioned in Steel Cast Corporation's case : [1977]107ITR683(Guj) , where the Tribunal was held to have jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise another aspect of the same case for mere computation regarding the point which had the same case for mere computation regarding the point which had already been raised before the ITO or the AAC.

3. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //