9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. It decided the question of assessability on the short ground that the income had not arisen in Baroda but in British India. That aspect of the matter has not been touched by the Bombay High Court. The latter has, on the other hand, considered whether the Concessions Order applies to the assessee, a matter not touched by the Tribunal. Thus, though the result is the same so far as the assessment is concerned, the grounds of decision are entirely different. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in going outside the point of law decided by the Tribunal and deciding a different point of law. The order of the High Court will, therefore, be set aside, and the case will be remitted to the High Court to decide the question framed by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, which are reproduced : March 25, 1949. "That a further dividend of Rs. 17 per ordinary share free of income-tax for the year 1947 be and is hereby declared absorbing Rs. 4,29,250 and the same be payable in Navsari out of the profits of the year 1947 lying at Navsari." September 24, 1949. "That a further dividend of Rs. 24 per ordinary share free of income-tax for the year 1948 be and is hereby declared absorbing Rs. 6,06,000 and the same be payable in Navsari out of the profits of the year 1948 lying at Navsari with Messrs. M. G. Investment Corporation Ltd., on or after 30th April, 1949." September 24, 1949. "Resolved that an ad-interim dividend of Rs. 21 per ordinary share free of income-tax absorbing Rs. 5,30,250 be and is here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also the question whether the Concessions Order applied to the assessee. The High Court recognised the grievance of the assessee that no such point was raised before the Tribunal. The High Court, however, by its order dated September 28, 1955, decided that there was no need to send the case back for a supplemental statement, since all the facts necessary to decide the two questions were before the High Court. The High Court then reframed the question, as it said, to comprehend the two points of law in the following words : "Whether the assessee is entitled to any concession under the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, with regard to the net dividend income of Rs. 47,120 ?" The reference then came up for final disposal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt had no jurisdiction to do so. The learned counsel for the Commissioner, on the other hand, contends that the question was the assessability of the assessee, who claimed the benefit of the Concessions Order. The main question was thus the applicability of the Concessions Order, and the question of the accrual of the income, whether in British India or in Baroda, was merely ancillary. The latter question was, according to the respondent, included in the first question, and the High Court was right when it framed a comprehensive question and answered it in the sequence it did. The respondent points out that the High Court having held that the Concessions Order did not apply, was not required to decide the other limb of the question, as it b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al even as a step in the decision of the point actually decided. The two decisions are thus strangers to each other, though they lead to the same result. Section 66 of the Income-tax Act which confers jurisdiction upon the High Court only permits a reference of a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. It does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court to decide a different question of law not arising out of such order. It is possible that the same question of law may involve different approaches for its solution, and the High Court may amplify the question to take in all the approaches. But the question must still be one which was before the Tribunal and was decided by it. It must not be an entirely different question wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly different, which is the case here. The Punjab High Court has taken a contrary view in Mash Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. For the reasons given above, we are of opinion, that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in going outside the point of law decided by the Tribunal and deciding a different point of law. The order of the High Court will, therefore, be set aside, and the case will be remitted to the High Court to decide the question framed by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that both the assessee and the Commissioner pointed out the anomaly to the High Court and the question was reframed in spite of this, the costs of this appeal shall be costs in the reference to be heard by the High Court, and will abide the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
