1967 (2) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... branch profits of the assessee arising at Radhanpur. While the appeal against the assessment order, which, inter alia, challenged the said inclusion of Rs. 4,72,500 was pending, there were negotiations between the assessee and the department with regard to a large number of disputes relating to the income of the assessee in several different kinds of transactions. It appears that as a result of those negotiations, an agreement was arrived at between the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 'L' Range, Bombay, and the assessee, as could be seen from the assessee's letter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner dated July 21, 1958, appearing at annexure "C" to the statement of the case and the letter from the Inspecting, Assistant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t competent, nor had the Tribunal jurisdiction to allow the matter to be agitated before it and decide it on merits. Without prejudice to these contentions, the counsel also argued the matter on merits. The Tribunal was not much impressed by the counsel's preliminary contentions, but in view of the contentions which were raised on merits, it sent the matter back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for hearing and disposal according to law. The assessee then made an application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act requesting the Tribunal to raise questions, which arose on the preliminary contentions raised by it, and the Tribunal accordingly drew up a statement of the case and referred to this court the following two question .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Tribunal could only be taken against a part of the order against which the appellant can be said to be feeling aggrieved. What is voluntarily accepted cannot give rise to a grievance which can be taken further in appeal. In the appeal memo, which was filed by the department, the only ground taken was that the deletion of the item by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was erroneous. The said ground was obviously unsustainable, since there could be no error on the part of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in accepting the concession which was made by the department before him. In these circumstances, the preliminary contentions, which were raised on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal, were entitled to succeed and the Tribunal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X