Remand scope and jurisdictional objections: a fresh disposal may cover all issues, including whether capital gains accrued in the relevant year.

On remand for fresh disposal, the authority may examine all relevant questions of fact and law unless the remand order expressly limits the enquiry. A plea that capital gains did not accrue in the relevant accounting year was not merely collateral, but a jurisdictional objection going to the basis of revision under section 263, and had to be considered. The Tribunal was also required to adjudicate that jurisdictional contention instead of declining it on a technical ground, because its decision could determine whether the revisional order could stand. The matter was therefore to be reconsidered on the jurisdictional issues arising from the alleged accrual of capital gains.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on remand, the assessee could raise the plea that the capital gains did not accrue in the relevant accounting year and that the Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have considered that jurisdictional objection under section 263; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to decide the contention that the capital gains issue went to the root of the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 263.

Issue (i): Whether, on remand, the assessee could raise the plea that the capital gains did not accrue in the relevant accounting year and that the Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have considered that jurisdictional objection under section 263.

Analysis: A remand for fresh disposal in accordance with law is not necessarily confined to the narrow points expressly argued earlier unless the appellate direction clearly limits the enquiry. Where no such restriction is imposed, the authority on remand may examine all relevant questions of fact and law. The plea that the capital gains did not accrue in the relevant year was not a merely collateral objection; it directly affected the very basis on which revision under section 263 was invoked.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to urge the plea, and the Commissioner ought to have considered it. This issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to decide the contention that the capital gains issue went to the root of the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 263.

Analysis: The Tribunal adopted a technical approach in declining to decide an issue that affected the jurisdiction to revise the assessment. Once the point was raised before the Commissioner and was refused consideration, it remained open in appeal before the Tribunal. A jurisdictional contention cannot be bypassed when its decision may determine whether the revisional order itself could stand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in refusing to adjudicate the jurisdictional contention. This issue is also answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The matter required reconsideration on the jurisdictional questions arising from the alleged accrual of capital gains, and the case was sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless a remand order expressly restricts the scope of enquiry, the authority remanded the matter for fresh disposal may examine all relevant questions of fact and law, and a jurisdictional objection affecting the very basis of revision must be adjudicated rather than avoided on technical grounds.

---