Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Cellulose Products Of India Ltd. on 15 April, 1976
Equivalent citations: [1985]151ITR532(GUJ)
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] 104 ITR 510). 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] 107 ITR 683), 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] 107 ITR 683, 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.