TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, can only be in respect of issues which were raised before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the issue of the disallowance in excess of the total exempt income was not an issue urged before the Tribunal. Therefore, it would be not possible for us to entertain this appeal as the issue being urged before us now, is not, an issue of jurisdiction. The question of law not raised before the Tribunal would not be allowed to be urged before the High Court in appeal under Section 260A of the Act. This, of course, does not preclude this Court from entertaining an appeal on issue of jurisdiction even if the same has not been raised before the Tribunal. However, in this case, admittedly, the proposed question is not one of jurisdiction. - INCOM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue on merits as reflected in the two above questions, stands concluded against the RespondentRevenue. Therefore, in order to challenge the findings of the Tribunal, he seeks to reframe the question of law and tenders draft proposed question of law which reads as under: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 50, 44, 792/u/ s. 14A of the Act? 4 It is submitted on behalf of the AppellantAssessee that on the date the appeal was filed before the Tribunal and also when the impugned order was passed, the original questions as framed in respect of strategic investment stood adjudicated in favour of the AppellantAssessee by the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal. 7 In response, Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Appellant in support, places reliance upon Santosh Hazari v/s. Purshottam Tiwari 251 ITR 84 and Chitturi Subbanna v/s. Kudapa Subbanna AIR 965 SCC 1325 to contend that question of law which does not require any further investigation into facts, should be entertained even at the stage of second appeal. Both these decisions were rendered not in the context of Section 260A of the Act but under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 8 Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel next places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Distillers Co. Ltd., 290 ITR 419. In the above case, the Apex Court upheld the view of the Karnataka High Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
