9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (11) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervations made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner about " Castle " being separately assessed at Bombay in the status of a registered firm apparently refer to assessment of that business in subsequent years and not in the year of assessment 1951-52. The conclusion of the Tribunal, therefore, suffers from a double infirmity : it assumes the only fact on which its conclusion is founded and ignores other relevant matters on which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied in support of his conclusion. The Tribunal has therefore misdirected itself in law in arriving at its finding, and in refusing to require the Tribunal to state the case and to refer it, the High Court was, in our view, in error. Appeal allowed. - - - - - Dated:- 18-11-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it to the High Court was also dismissed. With special leave the Commissioner has appealed to this court. The question in dispute before the revenue authorities was whether the business called " Castle " at Bombay was a branch of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the assessee to include the amount of Rs. 3,21,460 in the capital employed in the undertaking " Eldee ", because in his view there were in these two undertakings the same eight partners with a share of two annas each, and that the constitution of both the undertakings being the same, " Castle " could not be regarded as a separate entity. The Tribunal disagreed with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying upon only one ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the High Court, on the view that a question of law does not arise out of the order is not conclusive. The High Court has the power to call upon the Tribunal to state the case if in its view a question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Such a question may arise out of the findings of the Tribunal, and also if the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in arriving at its finding. It is not open to the court to discard the Tribunal's finding of fact, if there is some evidence to support the finding of the Tribunal on a question of fact, even if on a review of the evidence the court might have arrived at a different conclusion. It must, however, appear that the Tribunal had considered evidence covering all the essential matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
