9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding two issues, namely, the question of status and disallowances of expenses in one appeal filed by the assessee? The facts stated by the Tribunal are that the assessee-firm earns its income from sale of tendu leaves. According to the ITO, the firm did not file a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuation of the benefits of registration for the assessment year in question. When called upon to explain why declaration was not furnished, the assessee filed a duplicate Form No. 12 duly signed by all the partners along with their application dated March 1, 1977. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that in of the circumstances stated, there was sufficient cause for not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal was filed and that was under ss. 185 and 143 and, therefore, there is no appeal filed by the assessee against the refusal to give the advantage of registration and in view of this finding of the Tribunal, the matter could not be sent back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for rehearing. Learned counsel for the Revenue for his contention relied on para. 3 of the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the parties frankly conceded that if the direction of the Tribunal remanding the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is maintained, question No. (ii) is unnecessary as it is redundant. They also frankly conceded that question No. (i) in fact is made up of two parts: (a) whether, on the facts and in the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as designed as an appeal under ss. 143 and 185, whereas the counsel for the assessee contended that these observations are nothing but merely reproduction of what was observed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and as the Tribunal chose to remand the matter, it did not decide it on merits and, therefore, it could not be said that this part of the question arises out of the order of the Tribunal. It is plain that the second part of the first question, i.e., part (b) does not arise out of the order and, therefore, it is not necessary for this court to answer that question. So far as the first part of the question, i.e., part (a), is concerned, it is answered in the affirmative that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
