Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by setting aside the relief already granted by the first appellate authority in favour of the assessee, despite there being no appeal or cross-objection by the Revenue.
Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal was confined to the assessee's grievance against the relief not granted by the first appellate authority. In the absence of any appeal or cross-objection by the Revenue, the Tribunal could not enlarge the scope of the assessee's appeal and unsettle the relief already granted. The Tribunal was required to confine itself to the subject matter brought before it, and if it intended to examine the validity of relief already granted, the parties ought to have been put on notice. The Tribunal also failed to consider the limits of its power in relation to the assessment proceedings said to have been given effect to under the revisional order.
Conclusion: The Tribunal acted beyond jurisdiction in setting aside the first appellate order to the extent it had granted relief to the assessee, and the matter was required to be remanded for fresh consideration within the proper scope of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the respondent, an appellate authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the appellant's grievance and disturb relief already granted in favour of the appellant.