9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09/4 for Rs. 15,000. They have also taken on long-lease from the Government an adjoining area measuring 445.56 sq.mts. The assessee-firm began constructing a cinema theatre on the said site which is subsequently named as Sri Laxmi Theatre. According to the assessee the book value of the cost of the construction of the cinema house was Rs. 6,45,392. The assessee filed the return accordingly, along with the approved valuer's report. The Income-tax Officer found that the cost of construction adopted by the registered valuer was very low and no proper basis has been given to such estimation for arriving at its cost of construction. Therefore, he referred the matter of valuation to the Departmental valuer. The Departmental valuer estimated the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved towards the purchase of material is compensated by not including the value of those two items. The assessee filed before the Tribunal a petition seeking a reference of four questions. However, the Tribunal refused to refer three questions and referred only the question as set out in the earlier paragraph. The main argument of learned counsel for the assessee is that it was not the case of either the Department or the assessee that the cost of roofing and foundation were not included in the Valuation Officer's report. Therefore, the question referred by the Tribunal does not arise out of the facts before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the question that actually arose for consideration is question No. 2, namely, whether, on the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, although it does not specifically invest the court with such a power. The only condition is that questions of law should be raised by the reference. The High Court has not only the power but it is its duty to reframe the questions in such a way as to bring out the real dispute between the parties. The court is not confined to the questions which the Tribunal was directed to submit. There is abundant authority for this proposition. In Ganga Rant Balmokand v. CIT [1937) 5 ITR 464, the Lahore High Court has ruled that the High Court is not confined to the decision of the question of law as formulated by the Commissioner or the court issuing the mandamus. On the other hand, that section (section 66) confers upon the High Court full po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Department in any of the proceedings? Regarding the question that it is open to this court to reframe the question taking into account the facts stated in the statement of the case, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Smt. Anusuya Devi [1968] 68 ITR 750, considered the power of the High Court to frame questions and held as follows : "The High Court may answer only those questions which are referred to it. New questions which have not been referred cannot be raised and answered by the High Court. If the Tribunal refuses to refer a case under section 66(1) which arises out of its order, the proper course is for the aggrieved party to move the High Court to require the Tribunal under section 66(2) to refer the same. The question whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
