SAKTHI TRADING CO. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
2002PTD521
[2501 T R 781]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
versus
NOVELTY JEWELLERS
Civil Appeal No. 1777 of 2001, decided on 12/03/2001.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated August 19, 1999 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.C. No. 19 of 1998).
Income-tax---
----Reference---Question of law---Revision---Assessment pursuant to order in revision---Assessing Officer---Whether can make addition of items not subject-matter of issue before Commissioner---Question of law---Indian Income. Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256 & 263.
The only issue in an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was whether the Assessing Officer, while making an assessment pursuant to an order of the Commissioner in revision, could make an addition of an item which was not in issue before the Commissioner. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not add an item which was not a point at issue before the Commissioner. The Department sought for reference of four questions in its application before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the Department's application holding that none of the questions touched the main issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to take into consideration items which were not the subject matter of the order passed by the Commissioner (see (2000) 244 ITR 868). On appeal to the Supreme Court:
Held, setting aside the order of the High Court, that questions of law did arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and the Tribunal ought to state a case and refer a question or questions of law reframed, after giving notice to the parties, to bring out the precise point of law involved.
CIT v. Novelty Jewellers (2000) 244 ITR 868 set-aside.
S. Ganesh and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates for Appellant.
P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate (Bhargava V. Desai and Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Advocates with him) for Respondent.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We are of the view that the questions of law do arise, but we entirely agree that the questions could have been better drafted. We think, therefore, that the order under challenge should be set aside and the Tribunal directed to refer to the High Court for its consideration a question or questions reframed to bring out the precise point of law involved, after drafting an appropriate statement of case. For the purposes of reframing the questions, the Tribunal shall give notice to both the parties.
The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.
No order as to costs.
M. B. A./1060/FCLeave granted.