9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and the department with regard to a large number of disputes relating to the income of the assessee in several different kinds of transactions. It appears that as a result of those negotiations, an agreement was arrived at between the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 'L' Range, Bombay, and the assessee, as could be seen from the assessee's letter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner dated July 21, 1958, appearing at annexure "C" to the statement of the case and the letter from the Inspecting, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to the assessee of August 5, 1958, appearing at annexure "D". According to this settlement, it appears to have been agreed to between the parties that the sum of Rs. 4,72,500, which had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not much impressed by the counsel's preliminary contentions, but in view of the contentions which were raised on merits, it sent the matter back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for hearing and disposal according to law. The assessee then made an application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act requesting the Tribunal to raise questions, which arose on the preliminary contentions raised by it, and the Tribunal accordingly drew up a statement of the case and referred to this court the following two questions : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer's appeal against the deletion of the item of Rs. 4,72,500 was maintainable ? and 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. In the appeal memo, which was filed by the department, the only ground taken was that the deletion of the item by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was erroneous. The said ground was obviously unsustainable, since there could be no error on the part of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in accepting the concession which was made by the department before him. In these circumstances, the preliminary contentions, which were raised on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal, were entitled to succeed and the Tribunal should have held in favour of the assessee that the appeal of the department in respect of the deletion of the said item was neither competent nor capable of being entertained by the Tribunal. The department has taken ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
