Bombay High Court High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Cement Allocation & … on 15 January, 1997

Bombay High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Cement Allocation & … on 15 January, 1997
Bench: B Saraf, P Upasani

JUDGMENT

By The Court

1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the statement of the case drawn by the Tribunal in this case is not sufficient to enable us to determine the question raised by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed two compilations before us, which are marked as Compilation No. 1 and 2 respectively, and submits that the material facts relevant for deciding the question referred to us can be derived from the documents contained in these compilations. It is also stated that the material facts of the case have been discussed by the Members of the Tribunal in their orders and the same can be derived from those orders.

2. Considering the nature of controversy, we are of the opinion that the facts contained in the statement of the case drawn by the Tribunal and forwarded to us along with the questions for our determination are not sufficient to decide the controversy in question referred. We, therefore, refer the case back to the Tribunal for the purpose of adding thereto all material facts on which the decision of the Tribunal is based. The Tribunal may also consider whether the documents placed before us by the learned counsel for the assessee in the form of two compilations can be made part of the paper-book or gist thereof, wherever necessary, added in the statement of the case. Accordingly, we refer the matter back along with compilations filed by the counsel for the assessee to the Tribunal for modifying the statement of the case suitably as indicated above.

3. As the reference is very old, we direct the learned counsel for the assessee with the notice to the Revenue to move the Tribunal along with copy of this order, authenticated by the Associate, to modify the statement of the case expeditiously and remit the same to this Court as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today. This reference along with IT Ref. No. 9 of 1983 may be placed before the appropriate Bench in the third week of June, 1997 along with modified statement of the case.

4. This reference, not to be treated as part heard.