9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refer the question on the ground that a pure finding of fact was involved. The ground on which the reference has been refused does not appear to be a valid one, because the question is certainly not a factual one. In order to understand the controversy, it may be mentioned that the company was incorporated on 22nd April, 1972, and closed its accounts for the first time on 30th June, 1973. The accounting period was, therefore, 22nd April, 1972, to 30th June, 1973, as far the company's accounts were concerned. The ITO acted on the basis that the company was to be assessed for a period of twelve months starting from 1st July, 1972, and ending on 30th June, 1973. He, therefore, held that expenses incurred prior to 1st July, 1972, related t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on would indicate that a question of law can be referred when it " arises " out of the order of the Tribunal. The question as sought to be referred is not even stated in the Tribunal's order, and, therefore, it is urged that it does not arise out of the order. Learned counsel for the parties referred to some cases but not one of them is remotely near to the present case The leading judgment on the question in controversy is the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589. In that case it was observed in the majority judgment as follows (at p. 611): " The result of the above discussion may thus be summed up: (1) When a question is raised before the Tribunal and is dealt with by it, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot say that this question was not raised nor decided for the simple reason that it was the basis of the decision of both the ITO as well as the AAC. We are, therefore, of the view that a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal's order. There is another aspect of this case that also seems to require the decision of this court. The provisions of s. 3 of the Act show how the " previous year " of an assessee has to be settled. In the present case, the assessee set up the business in July, 1972, but in relation to the same had made expenses even before July, 1972. So, the court may have to consider whether the expenses incurred in an earlier period do not actually relate to the period I St July, 1972, to 30th June, 1973. Inasmuch as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
