9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th May, 1986 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 559 to 561/Ind/85 for asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1979-80 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in view of the ground of appeal taken before it, erred in law in setting aside the order passed by the AAC whereby the order of the ITO cancelling registration/continuation of registration of the assessee firm was set aside?" 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee observed financial year as its accounting period. It came into existence by a partnership dt. 23rd March, 1976 with three partners. The said firm was granted registration for the asst. yr. 1977-78 which was continued for subsequent years 1978-79 and 1979-80. In Sept., 1980, survey under s. 133A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of 1989 4. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 4th Aug., 1988, on application presented by the assessee (M/s Iqbal & Company, Unhel) arising out of the common order dt. 8th May, 1986 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 563 to 567/Ind/83, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the undernoted questions for our opinion : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in view of the grounds of appeal taken before it, erred in law in setting aside the findings given by the AAC that the assessee was a separate entity and the assessment made in the case of the assessee should be treated as substantive? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i A.M. Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri A.K. Shrivastava, for the non-applicant/Department in all these cases. 8. Shri Chaphekar submitted that against the assessee M/s Kamal Kishore & Co., Khachrod (Misc. Civil Case No. 60 of 1989) Department filed no appeal yet the Tribunal interfered with the order passed by the lower appellate Court and disturbed the order passed in favour of the assessee despite the fact that the order so disturbed had attained the finality. Shri Chaphekar, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the order passed by the AAC without there being any appeal by the Department. Shri Chaphekar with regard to Misc. Civil Case No. 66 of 1989 submitted that the Tribunal committed grave err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble independent of the orders passed in Misc. Civil Cases No. 60 of 1989 and 66 of 1989. 10. Sec. 253 of the Act permits appeals to the Tribunal. Under sub-s. (2) of this section, the CIT may, if he objects to any order, direct the AO to appeal to the Tribunal against the order. It is thus clear that there has to be an appeal and there has to be a specific objection. Under Order XLI r. 2 of CPC also it is clear that the appellant shall not, except by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal. Admittedly the ground of status was not taken by the Department in appeal in terms of s. 253(2) of the Act so far as Misc. Civil Case No. 66 of 1989 is concerned. It is also a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
