Law:

Section:

Section 256, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Reference - Question of fact - Whether any referable question of law arose from order of Tribunal in setting aside order of Commissioner passed under section 263, on ground that the Commissioner neither set out points for enquiry nor did he record any reason as to how order of ITO was prejudicial to interests of revenue - Held, no FACTS The Tribunal cancelled the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 on the ground that the Commissioner did not set out the points for enquiry nor did he record any reason or refer to any material as to how the order of the ITO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The reference application made by the department was also rejected. On an application under section 256: HELD On the facts of the instant case it had been found by the Tribunal that the basic requirement for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 had not been satisfied as the Commissioner neither set out the points for enquiry nor did he record any reason or refer to any material as to how the order of the ITO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, no question of law arose from Tribunal's order which required to be referred. CASES REFERRED TO J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326. Bharatji Agarwal for the Applicant. JUDGMENT Sahai, J. - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on behalf of the Commissioner. The following questions of law have been raised: "1. Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding…

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