9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions are fulfilled, the loss, if any, may be considered for being carried forward, when there was no decision by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the point of determination and carry forward of loss in all the appeals filed by the Department and to which no cross-objection has been filed by the assessee thereby putting the Department to a more disadvantageous position than it was at the time of filing the appeal ? " The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The Income-tax Officer in the assessment orders noted that the assessee had not shown income from the business of his wife, which was included in the previous year and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisely forms part of the order which forms the subject-matter of the question of law as referred. Mr. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the above direction by the Tribunal was wrong, more so when the assessee had not filed any cross-objection and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction making the above order. He has placed reliance on the following two judgments--(1) Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 257 (Gauhati) and (2) ITO v. R. L. Rajghoria [1979] 119 ITR 872 (Cal). The cases relied upon by learned counsel for the Revenue turn on their own peculiar facts. In R. L. Rajghoria's case [1979] 119 ITR 872, the Calcutta High Court held as follows (at page 876) : "....The question whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following (at page 275) : " The Tribunal has found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not correct in holding that the interest on Government securities was liable to tax in the instant case. We have also noticed that the basis of the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that is, Commissioner's order relating to the preceding year, was removed as illegal by the judgment of this court. That being so, the Tribunal itself having come to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was not sustainable, it could not pass the remand order on the terms it has been passed in the instant case. " Following the same obviously the Tribunal having concluded that the Appellate Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
