TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84 ? (ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the Income-tax Officer, while remaking the assessment, had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over an issue which stood concluded by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the original assessment ? (iii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the Income-tax Officer and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, acting under section 144B, did not make out any reasonable case for holding that the relief under section 84 was not due to the assessee, when, in fact, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have not at all considered the directions issued by the Inspecting Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to the Income-tax Officer's finding that it had not maintained the machinery repairs consumption account ? Questions Nos. (i) to (iii) pertain to the same point, namely, allowance of Rs. 22,34,900 under section 84. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Income-tax Officer has held that as separate accounts were not being maintained, therefore, it could not be found out as to how much allowance was admissible and the relief was rightly withdrawn. It may here be noted that originally when the assessment had taken place, the claim of the respondent was for Rs. 23,50,000, but what was allowed was Rs. 22,34,900. That question went up in appeal to the Tribunal who limited the allowance to Rs.22,34,900. The assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute before the appellate authority was whether the assessee was entitled to a sum larger than this or not. The principle of merger and the finality of the order would apply only in those cases where relief could have been granted by the appellate authorities on an issue decided by them which was sought to be re-opened under section 148 of the Act. As the Income-tax Officer had allowed the relief of Rs. 22,34,900, the Department could not go in appeal against that amount before the Commissioner of Income-tax or before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, this question was not a subject-matter of dispute before the Tribunal. This being so, if the allowance of Rs. 22,34,900 had been wrongly made, then a correction could have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred in respect of another year. Following our earlier order, we do not direct reference of the same. Similarly, following our order in Income-tax Case No. 107 of 1987, (J. K. Synthetics Ltd. (No. 2) case [1990] 181 ITR 537) no reference is being directed with regard to question No. (vi). As far as question No. (vii) is concerned, we are of the opinion that the said question is a pure question of fact and no question of law arises. The Tribunal has found as a fact that there was no basis on which the Income-tax Officer could have come to the conclusion that there was some material available with the assessee at the end of the accounting year. This being so, the question, as framed, does not arise. That leaves us only with question N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
