TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment year 1977-78, the petitioner sought to raise eight questions for being referred to this court. Vide order dated August 8, 1988, notice was limited to questions Nos. 3 and 7. The effect of this was that the court declined to direct reference on the other questions which were proposed. These questions Nos. 3 and 7 are as follows : "(3) On the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depriving him of the natural justice ?" As regards question No. 7, in our opinion, this question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. It was never argued before the Tribunal that principles of natural justice have been violated and it was also not contended that the petitioner had been given no opportunity to represent against the levy of interest under section 216 of the Act. In any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called. We, however, feel that with regard to Rs. 33,802, it was contended by the assessee before the Tribunal that these expenses did not relate to income-tax matters and it was not covered by the provisions of section 80VV of the Act. The Tribunal has referred to this contention but has given no finding. In our opinion, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted by the Tribunal. We make it clear that merely because a ground is raised in the grounds of appeal, it may not be regarded as being covered by the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court. Raising a contention before the Tribunal means that the representative of the assessee or the Department actually argued that contention before the Tribunal. If a ground is taken in the grounds of appeal bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
