Posted On by &filed under Supreme Court of India.


Supreme Court of India
Khodey Brewing And Distilling … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 250 ITR 659 SC
Bench: B Kirpal, R Pal


ORDER

1. Special leave granted,

2. The Tribunal had stated the case and referred the following question of law to the High Court (see [2000] 243 ITR 836, 838) :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under Section 139(8)/215 of the Act levied in the original assessment does not survive when a reassessment is done under Section 148 of the Act particularly in view of the apex court’s decision reported in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. ‘[1992] 198 ITR 297 ?”

3. A perusal of the judgment does not show that the High Court has answered the said, question of law. The High Court appears to have proceeded with the case as if it was sitting in appeal and exercising the appellate jurisdiction rather than hearing a reference.

4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court should re-hear the reference and answer the question of law referred to it with or without reframing the same. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court with the aforesaid direction.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.136 seconds.