Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 347 1978 SLD 347 (1978) 114 ITR 685
Allahabad High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 713 OT 1974, 24-Apr-78
SATISH CHANDRA, C.J. AND RAM MANOHAR SAHAI, J.
Bharatji Agarwal for the Applicant. Ashok Gupta for the
Respondent.

Surjidevi Kunjilal Jaipuria, Charitable Trust

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Orders of - Assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 - On basis of concession made by assessee trust in an earlier assessment year that two of its objects could not be classified as objects of public charity, Tribunal for said assessment year held that assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 4(3)(i) - For assessment years in question though there was no such concession made by assessee, Tribunal, however, followed of said earlier assessment year and decided case accordingly - Whether Tribunal should have proceeded to record finding on merits and not merely followed its earlier decision - Held, yes [Case remanded back] FACTS For the assessment year 1961-62, the Tribunal on the basis of the concession made by the assessee trust that two of the objects mentioned in trust deed could not be classified as objects of public charity, held that the trust was not entitled to exemption under section 4(3)(i). On reference the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal that the trust was not entitled to exemption. For the assessment years in question, the trust had not made any concession with respect to any of the objects either before the Tribunal or before the subordinate income-tax authorities. The Tribunal none the less disposed of the appeal on the basis of its rendered for the year 1961-62. On reference : HELD The position was that there was no finding by the Tribunal on the merits of the matter, specially on the two objects, which were the subject-matter of concession on the previous occasion. The trust argued that each of the object was an object of public charity which was covered by the relevant clause in the Act, entitling the trust to exemption. Since the Tribunal had not recorded any finding on the merits of the matter, the court was unable to decide the question of law as it had been framed. The Tribunal should have proceeded to record the findings on merits and not merely followed its earlier decision. Therefore, Tribunal was directed to rehear the appeal and decide it in accordance with law. Note: Case remanded back CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492