9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id one was raised for the first time in the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal held that since all the materials to decide the issue were on record and since the question was purely a question of law, they were admitting this new ground in appeal. They then dealt with the matter and came to the conclusion that the return filed on December 31, 1986, was not a valid return. They further held that section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not attracted to the facts of this case and was not sufficient to validate the said return. Consequent on these findings, the Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee on March 11, 1987, was the only valid return filed by the assessee, that, therefore, the further p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition No. 7222 of 1992, counsel for the assessee contended that no such questions arise for consideration and that in any case the petition has become infructuous and virtually an abuse of process for the reason that the order of the Tribunal had been implemented by the assessing authority by completing a fresh order of assessment on January 22, 1990. It was, therefore, submitted that no purpose will be served by directing reference of the questions sought by the Department. He also submitted that so far as the penalty matter is concerned, no question of law can be said to arise inasmuch as the Department has been given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after the reassessment if so desired. We do not propose to deal with the merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal, necessarily the implementation of the said order by the assessing authority pending the proceedings perhaps to obviate any plea of remit cannot be said to preclude the Department from filing this application under section 256(2) to compel a reference of the questions of law sought therein. We overrule this contention of the assessee. So far as the penalty matter is concerned, the order of the Tribunal is a consequential order to the order in the quantum appeal, so that the Department is well justified in seeking a reference of the question raised as a consequence of their petition under section 256(2) in the quantum appeal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the following questions of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
