9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication No. 104/(Gau) of 1991 arising out of Miscellaneous Petition No. 25 of 1990, I. T. A. No. 156 of 1988 pertaining to the assessment year 1983-84, rejecting the petitioner's application under section 256(1) of the Act, refusing to refer the questions of law to this court. Civil Rule No. 16(M) of 1992 arises out of the order dated December 5, 1991, passed by the Tribunal on Reference Application No. 50 of 1990, arising out of I. T. A. No. 156 of 1988 for the assessment year 1983-84 rejecting the petitioner's reference application under section 256(1) of the Act and refusing to refer the questions of law to this court. The petitioner is a limited company, duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The dispute relates to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 34 of 1990 by its order dated January 29, 1991, recalling its earlier order dated October 8, 1990, and rejected Reference Application No. 90 of 1990 arising out of the rejection order as having become infructuous. Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 1990 was heard afresh, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but ultimately it was dismissed by order dated May 7, 1991, as per annexure-10 in Civil Rule No. 14(M) of 1992. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Reference Application No. 104 of 1991 seeking reference of the following questions of law : " (1) Whether the findings of the Tribunal that it had considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record while passing its order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,21,388 out of the bonus payment of Rs. 73,49,551 whether this disallowance of Rs. 4,00,000 out of the assessee's claim of Rs. 6,72,864 for labour welfare was justified to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000. (4) Whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside a deduction of Rs. 12,919 for borrowing bamboo thatch. (5) Whether the disallowance of Rs. 17,010 under section 80VV of the Act and a further opportunity to the petitioner for adducing evidence to substantiate his claim, and, lastly, (6) the additional ground raised for the first time relating to the assessee's sales tax liability for the assessment year in question, was in order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner denounced the Tribunal's finding on most of the points as perverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has sustained this finding. The argument advanced before the Tribunal was in fact that the claim should have been allowed as deduction at ten per cent. under section 35D even if the authorities found it to be disallowable. The question of applicability of section 35D was not dealt with by the authorities below. Really speaking, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had given a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow ten per cent. deduction and the Tribunal found that no further modification on this count was called for. On the question of bonus payment of Rs. 73,49,551, learned counsel questioned the finding of the Tribunal that it called for fresh adjudication. He insisted that the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the amount paid by the assessee to the extent admissible, had already been allowed. Thus, this extra liability of the assessee would have to be ascertained. In this view of the matter, the insistence of learned counsel that the Tribunal should have decided the legal question relating to the payment of bonus, is ill-conceived. Remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the facts and material and to bring details on records for fresh disposal of the claim was in the circumstances not only the proper course open to the Tribunal but the only course. In this connection Empire Plantations (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 197 ITR 698 (Cal), can be referred to. The next point relating to the disallowance of Rs. 4,00,000 out of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365, the Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority under the Act and the High Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the statements of fact made by the Tribunal in its appellate order. The High Court may do so only if there is no evidence to support them or the Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in arriving at the findings of fact. But even there, the High Court cannot disturb the findings of fact given by the Appellate Tribunal unless a challenge is directed specifically by a question framed in a reference against the validity of the impugned findings of fact on the ground that there is no evidence to support them or they are the result of a misdirection in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
