9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (10) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; JUDGMENT S. T. DESAI, J. - A very unusual question arises for our determination on thisreference and ultimately the question is whether the Tribunal in the order whichis before us has stated what it meant or has failed to say what it meant. TheTribunal itself, as we shall presently point out, has on a subsequent occasion statedas to what is meant by the order under consideration. Now, we are not concernedwith what the Tribunal has stated it meant and no more. Therefore, although theTribunal has in a later order stated what the intended meaning and effect of theprior order was, we shall confine our consideration to the original order roundwhich the whole argument has turned before us. The assessee is Indo-Aden Salt Works Co., a firm, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Assistant Commissioner to rebut certainstatements made boy the Income-tax Officer but the Appellate Assistant commis-ssioner did not find it necessary to go into this on the view he was going to take.He, therefore, desired that the Tribunal should set aside the Appellate AssistantCommissioner's order and direct him to deal with the assessee firm's claim for relieffrom super-tax on its merits. This request is not only reasonable but proper. Iwould therefore vacate the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and restorethe appeal with direction that it be disposed of on its merits." Now, we shall have to consider whether by this order the Tribunal left thematter open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to deal with it as if the wholecontroversy in the appeal was at large or whether this order should be read asdirecting the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to go only into the questionrelating to relief from super-tax on its merits. When the matter went back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal, he fully inquired into the factsrelating to super-tax relief and recorded his finding with which we are not con-cern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misread the order of the Tribunal when he says 'However, the order ofthe Tribunal does not restrict my powers in any way'. As already observed, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had only to decide the narrow and limited pointof super-tax relief on its merits, all other points at issue having already become conclusive and binding on the parties." We have already observed that on this reference we are concerned onlywith the meaning and effect of the earlier order of the Tribunal as it reads and wewould not permit ourselves to take into consideration what the Tribunal mighthave thought it meant when that order was made. It has been urged before us by Mr. G. N. Joshi, learned counsel for theRevenue, that the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under sec-tion 31 are very wide. We agree that the powers of the Appellate AssistantCommissioner are very wide in the matter of disposal of any appeal taken to him.They are wider than the appellate powers which an appeal court exercises underthe Civil Procedure Code and no analogy should be drawn between powers exercis-able under section 31 of the Act and the powers of a court deciding an appealunder the Civil Procedure Code. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept this contention. Of coured, if the matter had rested there and not gone before theTribunal, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would have hadfinality. But once the matter went to the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided thatfor itself, it becomes necessary to consider what the order of the Tribunal was before it can be said whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had become final or not. That order could be varied, modified, confirmed or setaside by the Tribunal. For that one would have to consider the order of the Tribunal. The next contention of Mr. Palkhivala is that the Tribunal had no jurisdictionto pass an order so as to empower the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to enhancethe assessment. The Tribunal, it was stated, had no power to enhance the assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not sit in appeal over his ownjudgment or over the judgment of an Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, it is stated, could not indirectly do what it had no power to do directly.It is not suggested on behalf of the Revenue that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can sit in appeal over his own judgment or the judgment of another Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
