| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1633 1992 SLD 1633 (1992) 196 ITR 612 |
Delhi High Court
B.N. KIRPAL AND SANTOSH DUGGAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
B.N. KIRPAL AND SANTOSH DUGGAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Rathi Udyog Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court - Reference to - Whether if a contention is raised but not dealt with, then a question of law can arise, but if a contention is neither raised nor dealt with, then a question of law cannot arise - Held, yes FACTS The Tribunal directed that the interest on additional demand of sales tax might be allowed to the assessee by ignoring the material fact that there was no demand in respect of this interest from the sales-tax department and it had not been claimed as a deduction in return an the basis of which the assessment had been made. The revenue filed an application under section 256(1) seeking reference against the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the Bench was not addressed by the revenue and that there was no demand in respect of this interest from the sales-tax department. On writ: HELD If a contention is raised but not dealt with, then a question of law can arise, but if a contention is neither raised nor dealt with, then a question of law cannot arise. The Tribunal having held that the contention had neither been raised nor dealt with by it, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy this court that a contention had been raised. In the absence of such an averment, it had to be accepted that the petitioner did not raise the contention before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the question of law did not arise from its order. The petition was accordingly dismissed. Note: Decision was against the Petitioner. B. Gupta and R.C. Pandey for the Petitioner. M.S. Syali and Satyen Sethi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing that the interest of Rs. 71,434 on the additional demand of sales tax may be allowed to the assessee by…
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