LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-260

INSILCO LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On July 11, 2011
INSILCO LIMITED Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:

(2.) The questions of law as formulated while clearly demonstrate that a very limited issue, in a narrow compass, arises in this appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee. Challenging a portion of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') has impugned certain observations and issued directions to the Assessing Officer (AO) to recalculate the amount of refund allowable after tax deductable at source allowable thereon under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act (the Tax' in short). The AO included substantial income earned by the assessee while computing the taxable income. The Tribunal was dealing with the appeal preferred by the Revenue and the Revenue questioning the order of the CIT(A) whereby CIT(A) had deleted the interest charged by the AO under Section 220(2) of the Act. To this extent, the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. However, thereafter the Tribunal made certain observations and issued the aforesaid directions. According to the assessee, when the Tribunal had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it could not travel beyond the scope of the appeal preferred by the Revenue and issued such directions which are not only beyond the scope of the appeal, but also in excess of jurisdiction and authority of the Tribunal under Section 254(1) of the Act. As per the Tribunal, it was nothing, but a necessary consequence, on the facts of this case, to give complete effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. In order to appreciate the controversy, we need to traverse the necessary facts, which are as follows:

(3.) The Tribunal disposed of this appeal on 17.09.2002 directing the AO to assess the interest of 2,69,84,301/- in the Assessment Year 1993-94. We may note here that the present controversy has arisen while giving effect to this order passed by the Tribunal.