TMI Blog1962 (11) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Appellate Tribunal and decided a different point of law and that section 66 of the Income-tax Act empowered the High Court to answer a question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and it did not confer any jurisdiction to decide a different question of law not arising out of such order but it was possible that the same question of law may involve different facts and the High Court could amplify the question to take in all the facts but the question must still be one arising out of the Appellate Tribunal's order which was before the Tribunal or was decided by it. It could not decide an entirely different question. The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Tribunal to submit a supplemental statement of the case aftertaking additional evidence. - Appeals Nos. 158 and 159 of 1962 - - - Dated:- 2-11-1962 - KAPUR, J.L., DAS, S.K., SARKAR, A.K., HIDAYATULLAH, M. AND DAYAL, RAGHUBAR, JJ. For the Appellant: Purshottam Tricumdas, R. J. Kolah and I. N. Shroff For the Respondent: Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by KAPUR J.-These two appeals pursuant to a certificate are from the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which held that the cheques and hundis which were sent by the assessee company to its bankers and creditors were received by them as agents of the assessee company and, therefore, the profits were received in British India and were liable to tax. Against that order the assessee company applied under section 66 of the Income-tax Act for a statement of the case to the High Court. On February 21, I955, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court: "Whether the proportionate profits on the sale proceeds aggregating. Rs. 9,53,304 for the assessment year I94I-42 and Rs. 6,04,588 for the assessment year I942-43 or any part thereof were received by or on behalf of the assessee company in British India ? " The Appellate Tribunal in the statement of the case remarked that no attempt had been made at a previous stage to investigate as to whether the post office had acted as the agent of the assessee company or of the buyers. The High Court, on September 23, 1955, made the following order calling for a supplemental statement : " The same question arises on this reference as in the last reference (I. T. Reference No. 15 of I955) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in regard to cases dealing with income-tax are contained in section 66 of the Income-tax Act. Sub-section (i) of that section provides that if any question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and it is required by the assessee or the Commissioner to be referred to the High Court the Appellate Tribunal shall draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court for its opinion. If the Tribunal refuses to state the case then under sub-section (2) of section 66 on an application being made to it the High Court can, if it is not satisfied with the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision, require the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court. By sub-section (4) of section 66 the High Court may if not satisfied with the statement contained in the case referred to it refer the case back to the Appellate Tribunal for additions or alterations. Under sub-section (5) of section 66 the High Court is required to decide the question of law raised and to deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and thereafter a copy of the judgment is to be sent to the Appellate Tribunal which sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appeal. Section 66A was introduced in the Income-tax Act by section 8 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act (24 of 1926) to provide for appeals against judgments of the High Courts to the Privy Council and by the Adaptation Order of 1950 to the Supreme Court. Sub-section (2) of section 66A provides: " An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the High Court delivered on a reference made under section 66 in any case which the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. " No appeal lies to the Supreme Court unless it falls within that section, one of the requirements being a certificate of the High Court : see also Delhi Cloth General Mills Co.'s case (I927) 54 I. A. 42I). We are not here concerned with article 136 of the Constitution. Under sub-section (3) Of section 66A the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable in the case of appeals under section 66A "so far as may be " which confines the right of appeal under the statute to cases mentioned in sub-section (2): Delhi Cloth General Mills Co.'s case (I927) 54 I. A. 42I. Before the enactment of section 66A no appeal was competent against a judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question whether the order passed asking for a supplemental statement with a direction for taking additional evidence was permissible to the High Court under section 66(4) of the Income-tax Act. As we have said the jurisdiction of the High Court is only advisory and is acquired by virtue of an express provision of the Income-tax Act and is limited to answering the questions stated to the High Court for the purpose of soliciting its opinion on those questions and those questions must arise out of the order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. This is clear from sub-sections (i) and (2) Of section 66. Under those provisions the only question of law which can be referred to the High Court is any question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal and thus if a question does not arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal it cannot be referred to the High Court. For the drawing up of the statement of the case the Tribunal has before it facts admitted or found and they form the basis' of the statement submitted to the High Court. If necessary facts which will lay the foundation of raising a question of law are not there then there is no basis for reference of that ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Concessions) Order. The Appellate Tribunal held that the income did not accrue to the assessee in Baroda State but did not decide the question whether she was entitled to the benefit of the Taxation Concessions Order. The High Court field that the Taxation Concessions Order did not apply to the assessee but did not decide the question as to whether the income had accrued to the assessee in Baroda State. Thus, the Appellate Tribunal raised one question and the High Court answered another. This court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in going out of the point raised by the Appellate Tribunal and decided a different point of law and that section 66 of the Income-tax Act empowered the High Court to answer a question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and it did not confer any jurisdiction to decide a different question of law not arising out of such order but it was possible that the same question of law may involve different facts and the High Court could amplify the question to take in all the facts but the question must still be one arising out of the Appellate Tribunal's order which was before the Tribunal or was decided by it. It cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be taken. In that case no objection was taken to the order for a supplemental statement. Thus it appears that the jurisdiction of the High Court is advisory under section 66 of the Income-tax Act. Under that section a question of law can be. referred soliciting its opinion but the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to giving an opinion on that question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It has no jurisdiction to raise another question or to answer a different question. In order to answer the question raised in the statement of the case the High Court may ask for a supplemental statement but that statement also is to be confined to the placing of facts already on the record. The supplemental statement of the case may contain alterations or additions as the High Court may direct but those facts must be already on the record as the High Court has no power to ask for additional evidence to be taken. Secondly, when the supplemental statement of the case is directed to be submitted it is not a judgment or a final order as understood in its strict legal and proper sense nor a judgment in the sense it is used in the Income-tax Act, i.e., section 66(5) or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
