Director Of Income Tax ... vs Arunodya
2005 Latest Caselaw 1591 Del

JUDGMENT

The assessing officer denied the benefit of section 11 to the assessed on the ground that the assessed had violated the provisions of sections 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax the assessed appears to have alternatively claimed benefit under section 10(22A) of the Act which too was rejected by the Commissioner. In a further appeal before the Tribunal the assessed was allowed to urge the additional claim for benefit under section 10(22-A) of the Act in exercise of the Tribunal's power under rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal has eventually remitted the matter back to the assessing officer with the direction that the claim made by the assessed for benefit under the said provisions may be examined and fresh orders passed after giving to the assessed an opportunity of being heard. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the said order.

We have heard Mr. Jolly, counsel for the revenue, and Mr. Vora appearing for the respondent-assessed. In ' so far as the petitioner's entitlement to the benefit of section 11 is concerned, the issue stands concluded and the benefit finally denied to the assessed. The assessed has 'not it appears, made any grievance against the said denial by filing an appeal in this court. That did not however prevent the assessed from making an alternative claim under section. 10(22A) of the Act especially when a claim to that effect had been made before the Commissioner of Income Tax also as is evident from a reading of the order passed by him. Inasmuch as the Tribunal had allowed the assessed to raise an additional ground and make a claim under the provisions of section 10(22A) it had not committed any error of law nor did the order passed by the Tribunal give rise to any substantial question of law for our consideration. The Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain an alternative claim and have the same investigated at the appropriate level. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for our consideration to warrant admission of this appeal. This appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.