COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HIND POCKET BOOKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . Mr. Beriwal appears for the respondents. With consent, this appeal has been heard for final disposal at the stage itself.

(2.) APPEARING for the Revenue, Mrs. Bansal argued that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from a basic fallacy inasmuch as the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on the assumption that the order passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 2001 -02 had attained finality so as to bring in considerations of consistency which the said authority ought to maintain in fact situations that are similar. She submitted that the Revenue had, aggrieved of the order passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 2001 -02, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was pending before the Tribunal on the date the order impugned in this appeal was passed. The Tribunal has not, however, adverted to the said appeal or noticed its pendency. The proper course, according to the learned counsel, was for the Tribunal to take up the two appeals together and decide whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee was an admissible business expenditure instead of remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for passing a fresh order.

(3.) THERE is, in our opinion, considerable merit in the submission of Mrs. Bansal. The order passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 2001 -02 had, no doubt, allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee for the purpose indicated earlier but the said order had not attained finality and was under challenge before the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The question whether the deduction claimed by the assessee was legally admissible was, therefore, an issue that had to engage the attention of the Tribunal. Even for the asst. yr. 2000 -01, the question was whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the education of the daughter of the managing director could be allowed as an admissible business expenditure. Instead of remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order, the Tribunal could have resolved the issue itself by taking up the two appeals together for hearing and disposal. This would have avoided not only unnecessary procrastination of the matter implicit in a remand but prevented multiplicity of legal proceedings.