9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act in view of the amended provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act extending the time limit up to March 31, 1993, for converting the deposits into permissible mode of investments even though the non-specified assets had not been acquired during the previous year?" Before the Tribunal the question was whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal following the decision of this court in the case of CIT (Addl.) v. Aditanar Educational Institution [1979] 118 ITR 235, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this order, the Department filed a reference application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correct in granting exemption under section 10(22) of the Act. It was also requested in the statement to reframe the question, since the question framed and suggested by the Department does not reflect the true controversy that arises between the assessee and the Department. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that due to inadvertence the question was framed mistakenly and does not reflect the true controversy that arose between the assessee and the Department. This court, according to learned standing counsel, has got ample jurisdiction to reframe the question so as to reflect the true controversy that arises between the contesting parties. However, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is beyond the jurisdiction of this court in these proceedings to alter the basic frame of the question." In CIT v. Union Bank of India [1990] 186 ITR 129, the Bombay High Court while considering the reframing of the question held that : "While the High Court had power to reframe questions to bring out the real controversy between the parties, the question to be reframed must be a question which is sought to be raised by the party. The manner in which the Department suggested reframing of the question meant the framing of an altogether new question which could not be raised by the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act." In CIT v. Shadi Lal Puri [1995] 214 ITR 552 (P H), while considering the provisions of section 256 of the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nar Educational Institution [1979] 118 ITR 235, that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Act. But, while framing the question in the reference application, the Department stated that the Tribunal was not correct in granting exemption under section 11 of the Act as per the amended provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In fact, the Tribunal has not dealt with the question relating to exemption under section 11 read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Even in the statement of facts submitted before the Tribunal in the reference application, the Department has stated that the Tribunal decided a question relating to exemption under section 11 read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In the course of the hearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
