9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nders and photo composing and type setting machine despite the fact of non-user of the said assets for business purposes during the year under consideration? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that delivery of movable property includes the user of the asset by the purchaser?" Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the petition must fail. It is not disputed that the business of the assessee in the relevant assessment year has been the leasing out of its assets including trucks, cylinders, photo-composing and type setting machines. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that during the assessment year the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e owned by the lessee but the ownership was transferred to the assessee during the assessment year and the lease had also taken place during the assessment year as found by the Tribunal. It appears that the possession of the gas cylinders was not physically transferred from the lessee to the lessor-assessee simultaneously with the sale and then back to the lessee from the lessor-assessee simultaneously with the lease. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question which really could have arisen and as has been sought to be projected by the submissions made by counsel for the Revenue was not proposed by it before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that this court does have jurisdiction to reframe any suggeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 971] 79 ITR 499 (SC) and Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC). For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the questions on which reference has been sought for do not arise as questions of law from the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal. We may reiterate that the correctness of the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal are not the subject-matter of challenge on the phraseology of the two questions as suggested. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal refusing to make a statement of case to this court and rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act. The petition is, therefore, rejected though without any order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
