SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Kar) 381

MOHAMMAD SHARIF, S.A.HAKEEM
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Vidyavathi Kapur – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, for the Appellant
Mr. G. Sarangan, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Jagannatha Shetty, J.—The Department seeks a reference in respect of the following two questions :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in remitting the matter back to the Wealth-tax Officer for a fresh disposal after applying rule 1BB even though no retrospective effect is given to this rule ?

2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in entertaining the additional ground even though it required fresh fact for decision which had to be gathered on further enquiries ?"

2. The dispute in respect of both the questions relates to the applicability of rule 1BB. The Tribunal has held that it is a procedural rule and, therefore, it may be given effect to even in respect of pending matters. There is no dispute and indeed it cannot be disputed that rule 1BB is procedural in nature. That being the portion, we fail to see any question of law arising out of the order the Tribunal, since it is always not disputed that the rules of procedure can be called into aid in respect of pending matters.

3. Civil petitions are, accordingly, rejected.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top