Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs Cellulose Products of India Ltd.

Divan, C.J.—In this case at the instance of the Revenue, two questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal. The first out of these two

questions is directly covered by the decision of this High Court in CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., (income tax Reference No. 19 of 1971,

decided on September 11/12, 1973 - Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., . In view of that decision

question No. 1 must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

As regards question No. 2, the main question is regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow the assessee to raise an additional ground for

the first time before it even though it was not raised before the AAC and to restore the appeal to the AAC for fresh adjudication and whether it

had jurisdiction to restore the appeal to the AAC. We find, as regards question No. 2, that the question regarding relief under s. 84 had been

raised before the ITO and the AAC and the main question which the Tribunal has directed for reconsideration is regarding the computation for the

purpose of s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961. There is no question of altogether a new point being taken up but merely the computation (of relief) on

another aspect of the case which was already before the ITO and the AAC, was allowed to be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Under

these circumstances, following CIT v. Steel Cast Corporation (income tax Reference No. 72 of 1974, decided by this court on December 17,

1975 - Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-III Vs. Steel Cast Corporation, ), it must be held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow the

assessee to raise this particular point regarding computation for the purpose of s. 84. This question must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative,

since the case falls within one of the categories mentioned in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-III Vs. Steel Cast Corporation, , where the

Tribunal was held to have jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise another aspect of the same case for mere computation regarding the point

which had the same case for mere computation regarding the point which had already been raised before the ITO or the AAC.

Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner will pay

the costs of this reference to the assessee.