M/S Vaibhav Enterprises, Satna vs The Dcit ,Central-1, Bhopal on 31 August, 2022
Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) (CLC 111-128) wherein
Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that the appellate provisions
(Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act)
do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on
matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate
mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with
escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court held that
"It was not contended, nor was it possible to contend, that by reason of
the reference to the said provisions the powers and jurisdiction conferred
on the respective authorities, tribunals or courts referred to therein were
enlarged or modified by a reference in the proviso or that the proviso
35
ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025
DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others
could be read or construed as amending those sections conferring on
those bodies wider or different powers or jurisdiction. Learned counsel for
the department expressly disclaimed any such submission. Therefore, the
scope of the proviso cannot ordinarily exceed the scope of the jurisdiction
conferred on an authority under the said provisions."