9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded to examine the case and eventually reversed the order of CIT (Appeals). The High court did not notice the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal and upheld the order of the Tribunal. In such a situation like the one arising in the case and keeping in view the question involved, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal filed by the respondent-Company (assessee) afresh on merits because the Tribunal being the last Court of appeal on facts, its finding on the question of fact is of significance. Remanding the case is not likely to cause any prejudice to any party because the aggrieved party will have a right of appeal to the High Court and then to this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The question arose in the assessment year in question before the Assessing Officer (AO) as to what is the true nature of payment of ₹ 3.25 crores made by the respondent-Company ( assessee) to one Mr. G.R.Hada pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the respondent-assessee Company and Mr. G.R.Hada in a civil suit filed by Mr. G.R. Hada against the respondent-Company and others. 7. According to the respondent-Company( assessee), Mr. G.R. Hada and the respondent-Company were the joint promoters of one Company called M/s Andhra Pradesh Rayons Limited in which Mr. G.R. Hada was holding 10.25% shares and the remaining shares were held by other promoter shareholders with different percentage. 8. Since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as revenue expenditure . 13. The respondent-Company ( assessee) felt aggrieved and filed second appeal in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the question in Paras 26 and 27 and by its order dated 30.06.2003 allowed the appeal and directed the AO to allow the deduction of ₹ 3.25 crores as claimed by the respondent-Company ( assessee). 14. The Commissioner of Income Tax Revenue felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, Nagpur Bench. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the Revenue in this Court. 15. So, the short question, which arises for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the AO (concluding Para 12 (a) (d) of the AO s order at page 60 of SLP and concluding Para 15.1 of CIT (Appeals) at page 93 of the SLP). 21. In other words, we find that the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate as to what AO and CIT (Appeals) held and what was their reasoning which led to their respective conclusion. 22. Having wrongly observed about their respective reasoning and the finding, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the case and eventually reversed the order of CIT (Appeals). The High court did not notice the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal and upheld the order of the Tribunal. 23. In such a situation like the one arising in the case and keeping in view the question involved, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
