9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : For the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81, the assessee claimed relief under section 35B(1)(b) of the Act in respect of certain expenses incurred. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction since it had sold all goods to MMTC which in turn exported the goods. It was further held that as all the expenses which fell under sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act were incurred in India, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction. On appeal, for the assessment year 1977-78, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the petitioner was entitled to weighted deduction on 50% of the rent payment and the expenses on the supervisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the appeals, directed the Incometax Officer to give weighted deduction on the commission payment made to MMTC. However, as regards the other items, no finding was given. In the circumstances, the assessee made an application under sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act requesting the Tribunal to rectify the mistake by considering the prayer of the assessee for granting weighted deductions on the other items as it had not considered them at all in its order. The Tribunal, by its order dated September 24, 1985, rejected the miscellaneous petition holding that the assessee had not raised such specific grounds in the appeal. Thereafter, the assessee made an application under sub-section (1) of section 256 before the Tribunal requesting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions contained in this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court : Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period hereinbefore specified, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days. (2) If, on an application made under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises, the assessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may, within six months from the date on which he is served with notice of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 254(1) is rejected by the Tribunal. In such a case, the result would be the order made under section 254(1) remains undisturbed and a reference application would have to be made either under subsection (1) of section 256 or sub-section (2) of section 256 of the Act, only with reference to such order, for questions of law could arise only out of such order. In fact, no question of law arises out of an order rejecting an application made under section 254(2) of the Act. This is also the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Popular Engineering Co. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 398. We are in respectful agreement with that view. Accordingly, we answer the question set out first as follows: No application for reference under section 256(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
