TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receipt and, accordingly, deleting the additional surcharge of Rs. 81,920 charged for the assessment year 1963-64 ? " The High Court returned the reference unanswered. It directed the Tribunal to consider the case " on all points that require consideration of the question whether additional surcharge was attracted ". In short, if asked the Tribunal to examine whether the additional surcharge was attracted even if the income of Rs. 19 is chargeable under the head " Profits and gains of business ". Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making the above direction. It is submitted that the matter be sent back to the High Court for answering the question of law as stated by the Tribunal. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er as " income from other sources ". The Tribunal recorded in its order ( at page 615 of 132 ITR ) : 'Before us, it is made clear by both sides that the levy of additional surcharge and interest would depend upon the classification of the head of income for this interest income of Rs. 19 and that if it fell under income from business, the appeal has to be dismissed and that if it fell under 'Income from other sources', the appeal, has to be allowed and, the levy of surcharge and interest restored. So we proceed to discuss the vital issue in this case on which hangs the result of this appeal ". The Tribunal held it as " income from business " and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Tribunal. This court has jurisdiction to correct an error in the order of the Tribunal, so long as the point arose out of its order, whoever be the author of the mistake or error in taking up a particular contention. Having regard to the nature of the issue that was before the Tribunal and having regard to what we have stated above, we think it proper to set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to consider the case on all the points that require consideration of the question whether additional surcharge was attracted. The reference is returned unanswered." We find it difficult to agree with Smt. Janaki Ramachandran, learned counsel for the assessee, that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 33,333 on August 10, 1946. The total compensation so received exceeded the cost price of the steamship. The difference between the cost price and written down value was Rs. 9,26,532. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1946-47, the Revenue sought to charge the said amount under the fourth proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, inserted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1946, which came into force on May 4, 1946. The assessee contended that the amount should be deemed to have been received on April 16, 1944, as was done for the purposes of the Excess Profits Tax Act, in which case it could not fall within the accounting period July 1, 1944, to June 30, 1945, relevant to the assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....affirmed the view of the High Court. It was held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the new contention raised by the assessee for the first time inasmuch as it was within the scope of the question framed by the Tribunal and was implicit therein. This court enunciated several principles relating to the nature of the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 256, of which the following principle is relevant for our purpose : "Section 66(1) speaks of a question of law that arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Now a question of law might be a simple one, having its impact at one point, or it may be a complex one, trenching over an area with approaches leading to different points therein. Such a question might involve more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner and the Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention that it was business income and, therefore, the liability for surcharge was not attracted. The High Court, however, thought that, having regard to the language of the provisions of the relevant Finance Act, the Tribunal ought to examine whether the liability to additional surcharge is attracted even if the said sum of Rs. 19 was treated as income from business. The High Court was of the opinion that the legal submission urged by the Revenue before the High Court, no doubt for the first time, did call for serious consideration. This was done to arrive at a correct decision in law relating to the liability to additional surcharge. If really additional surcharge was chargeable according ....