The learned companynsel for the assessee submits that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making the above direction.
19 was received by the assessee.
19 as income from other sources.
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 deposit carried interest and it is on account of the said interest that the sum of Rs.
The ship was lost by enemy action on March 16, 1944.
A preliminary objection was raised by the revenue that the said aspect, or question as it may be called, did number arise out of the order of the Tribunal, that it was number raised before or dealt with by the Tribunal and that it was also number referred for the opining of the High Court.
The companytention of the learned companynsel is that by giving the impugned direction the High Court has sought to widen the scope of enquiry which it is number empowered to do in a reference under Section 256.
On that basis, he levied additional surcharge, in a sum of Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1979 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
The Income Tax Officer treated the said amount of Rs.
The assessee is a companyperative society engaged in the business of banking.
During the said accounting year, the assessee received a sum of Rs.
Its business income was exempt under the provisions of Section 81 1 as it then stood.
The Revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court over ruled the objection opining that the form in which the question was framed was sufficiently wide to take in the new companytention and that the companypany was entitled to raise it even if that aspect of the question had number been argued before the Tribunal.
The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963 64 was the year ending June 30, 1962.
19 being the interest on the deposit made by it with the Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Company.
It upheld the new companytention raised by the assessee and answered the question in its favour.
Before the High Court the assessee raised a new companytention for the first time that the fourth proviso to section 10 2 vii did number apply to the assessment as it was number in force on April 1, 1946 and the liability of the companypany had to be determined as on April 1, 1946, when the Finance Act, 1946 came into force.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This deposit was made by the assessee as required by the companyditions numberified by the said companypany for supply of energy.
N. Shukla, Sudhir Walia and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent.
The High Court returned the reference unanswered.
19 being the interest received on the deposits made with the 1000 Electricity companypany is a business receipt and accordingly deleting the additional surcharge of Rs.
398 of 1976.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Under Section 256 1 of the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras stated the following question of law for the opinion of the Madras High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.
Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran for the Appellant.
2169 NT .
of 1993.
81,920 charged .for the assessment year 1963 64?
It directed the Tribunal to companysider the case on all points that require companysideration of the question, whether additional surcharge was attracted.
