9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal before the Appellate Commissioner was withdrawn on September 28, 1984 on the basis of the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. [1984] 8 ITD 296 ; (ii) That the order in the impugned appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the same day, i.e.,September 28, 1984; (iii) That immediately thereafter, i.e., on October 3, 1984, it was reported that the Supreme Court had dismissed special leave petitions by the department against the orders dated July 20, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in IT Appeal Nos. 237 and 200 of 1980, respectively, whereby the High Court declined to call for a reference on the question whether, where deferred annuity policies were purchased by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this miscellaneous application, there is also reference to the judgments mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 12 of this petition. According to the assessee, in view of the omission of the Tribunal, to mention the facts of the case and failure to dwell on the cases cited at the bar, the order of the Tribunal suffers from inherent inadvertence and patent deficiencies as to render it perverse and invalid. Finally, there is a prayer that this order be recalled. 3. The revenue, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee is seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal by making various submissions which are not relevant or germane to the issues decided by the Tribunal and this is not permitted under section 254(2) because under this sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ITO v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. [1984] 8 ITD 296 (Bom.). The Tribunal, therefore, ultimately comprehended that insofar as the merits of the issue were concerned, which had been discussed in detail by the ITO, the assessee, apparently, had no case when a concession was made before the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. When the matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal the claim of the assessee in the ground raised was that the matter 'be remanded to him [Commissioner (Appeals)] for readjudication in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 10132 of 1981 and 635 and 637 of 1982'. On this ground, the Tribunal heard the parties and observed as under : " After careful consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion, is not the method available for seeking the relief sought in these appeals, because the ITO had decided the issue on various grounds and when the assessee went in appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it was more than on merits that the issue required determination rather than the points of law which are now projected before us. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals of the assessee. Appeals dismissed. " 6. From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal did not deal with the issue on merits but only rejected the appeals of the assessee because the assessee had chosen not to press for these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal did not find any justification for remanding the matters back to him for readju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
