9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bom/87 and 95/Bom/88 which, in terms arise out of ITA No. 3573/Bom/84. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, Bombay requires the Tribunal to refer the following two questions, said to be of law and said to arise out of the aforementioned order of the Tribunal. "1. Whether the Hon. ITAT was correct in law in holding that during pendency of the case before the Settlement Commission which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om/1984. By this order, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the order of the CIT u/s. 263. Against this order, the Department had filed a reference application on 17-9-1987. This application was rejected by the Tribunal in R.A. No. 2932/Bom/87 on 17-11-1988. 3. Now by this fresh reference application, the Department wants the Tribunal to refer certain questions, said to arise out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified in section 116. In both these sections, income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not regarded as an income-tax, authority which would mean that the Settlement Commission cannot exercise or supersede the powers of the ITAT. This has been well settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee [1979] 118 ITR 461. Therefore, it is in our opinion, presumptuous for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument was advanced, at the time of hearing before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to deal with it. Therefore, the Department is no manoeuvring to raise a question, which can never be said to arise out of the original order of the Tribunal and which had been sought to be raised through a miscellaneous application. 4. The second question also does not arise out of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Tribunal against the CIT(A)'s order on 20-3-1983. Finally, the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was never raised by the Department at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Misc. Application was dismissed because such application was filed to reargue the points which were not raised at the time of the original hearing. Therefore, in our opinion, the questions frame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
