TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the following questions to this court 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that expenditure of Rs. 3,64,13,337 on which weighted deduction under section 35B was allowed by the Income-tax Officer amounting to Rs. 1,21,37,945 was covered by the assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Central II, who is the petitioner in the present case, received the order from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal only on August 14, 1989. It is, therefore, submitted that the limitation should be computed with effect from August 14, 1989, and not with effect from May 22, 1989, when the order under section 256(1) was sent to the Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 256(1) has to be filed not by the Income-tax Officer but only by the Commissioner of Income-tax. It is obviously the Commissioner of Income-tax who is in charge of the Assessing Officer who would have the jurisdiction to file an application under section 256(1). He would be regarded as "the Commissioner" referred to in section 256(1) as well as section 256(2). The reference application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n served on the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central 11) and not on the Chief Commissioner. The petitioner has, therefore, rightly computed the period of limitation with effect from the date when the order was served on them. As regards the merits of the case, in our opinion, the questions of law do arise and we, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid questions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
