9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctness was not challenged by the revenue authorities in further proceedings. The question now raised by the learned Additional Solicitor-General is not a question that is involved in the question framed. It really turns on a question of fact as to which, of course, no reference could be made by the Tribunal to the High Court. It is not contended that if the date of merger was January 1, 1948, the question framed can be answered to the advantage of the revenue authorities. In fact we were not asked to answer that question on the basis that the merger took place on January 1, 1948. The question must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 28-10-1965 - Decision Dates(s) : 28/10/1965 Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was not in dispute that the sanction had not been taken. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and his decision was upheld on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal upheld that contention and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the amendment made in section 34 by the Amending Act of 1948 applied to the area covered by the Raigarh State which, as the parties agreed before it, merged in India prior thereto. At the request of the revenue authorities the Tribunal referred the following question for the decision of the High Court : "Whether on a true construction of the Raigarh Darbar Notification No. 89/44/D/Raigarh dated July 31, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing a question of fact as to when Raigarh State merged in India and this the Tribunal had rightly refused them permission to do, particularly as they had all along proceeded on the basis that the State had merged in India on January 1, 1948. In the present appeal the Additional Solicitor-General appearing for the revenue authorities raised the same contention as counsel for them had done in the High Court. The learned Additional Solicitor-General said that the State having merged in India on January 1, 1948, on a proper interpretation of the notification of July 31, 1944, it had to be held that the amending Act of 1948 had never applied to Raigarh State. It is unnecessary to express any opinion as to the merits of this contention. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
