9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in sending a case on remand to determine if a loss was a capital loss or a trade loss, and the issue of the maintainability of a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available. Summary: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal The respondent, a businessman, incurred a loss in share transactions which the Income-tax Officer deemed speculative. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed this decision, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, sending the case on remand to determine if the loss was a capital or trade loss. The High Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by considering the capital loss aspect, as it was not part of the original appeal grounds. Citing precedents and statutory provisions, the court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to remand the case on this aspect was beyond its authority. The impugned part of the Tribunal's order was set aside, affirming the rest of the order. Issue 2: Maintainability of Writ Petition The appellant argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court entertained the writ petition, issued a rule nisi, and ultimately heard and decided the case. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized that once a writ petition is entertained and decided, the court's jurisdiction to hear the petition is established, even if an alternative remedy existed. Therefore, despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. This judgment clarifies the limits of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in remanding cases and highlights the circumstances under which a writ petition may be entertained despite the availability of alternative remedies.
|
