9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and, thereafter, the Tribunal was required to remand the case to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on the merits. However, this was not done by the Tribunal while passing the order on December 23, 1997. Accordingly, the Tribunal while passing the order under section 254(2) of the Act had revived the appeal in order to do justice between the parties and to pass appropriate orders thereon. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the order passed or the approach of the Tribunal which may call for interference by this court. The substantial question of law as proposed is answered against the Revenue - 60 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 985, while allowing the appeal annulled the assessment order being barred by limitation. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal and the Tribunal, vide order dated November 8, 1994, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed reference application for drawing the statement of the case and referring the question of law to this court. The Tribunal, vide order dated October 17, 1995, referred the question of law to this court. This court, vide order dated September 29, 1997, passed in I. T. R. No. 142 of 1996 decided the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In pursuance of the judgment of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n consonance with the order of this court, the order that was required to be passed was to remand the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal of the assessee on the merits which had remained untouched while passing the order dated June 17, 1985, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee noticed the aforesaid mistake apparent on the record of the Tribunal in its order dated December 23, 1997, and filed an application under section 254(2) of the Act for rectification which was rectified, vide order dated February 26, 1999, by recalling the order dated December 23, 1997, and fixing the case for deciding the other issues in the appeal. After the reference was answered by the High Court, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing of the original appeal. In the present case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had only decided the question of limitation and had not touched the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer while disposing of the appeal, aggrieved against which, the Revenue had approached the Tribunal. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and, thereafter, the Tribunal was required to remand the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for adjudication on the merits. However, this was not done by the Tribunal while passing the order on December 23, 1997. Accordingly, the Tribunal while passing the order under section 254(2) of the Act had revived the appeal in order to do justice between the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
