COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. CHANDRIKA EDUCATIONAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under section 256(2) of the INcome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Commissioner of INcome-tax, "the petitioner" - for short - urges that questions of law arise of the INcome-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in I. T. Appeal No. 514 (Coch.) of 1982. He seeks an order directing the Tribunal to refer such questions to the High Court.

(2.) THE Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the respondent for exemption from income-tax under section 11(1) (a) and (b) on two grounds :

(3.) AGAIN, the question whether the respondent is entitled to the exemption from taxation if he violated sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(h) raises another question of law. No doubt the Tribunal held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the argument based on the violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Yet, it considered the argument basis of its own earlier decision. The fact remains that the petitioner was not permitted to urge it. In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., 1961 42 ITR 589, it was held, inter alia, that a question of law arises if such question is "raised before the Tribunal though not decided by the Tribunal". It cannot be said that the petitioner did not "raise" the question about the violation of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(h) of the Act by the respondent. The fact that the Tribunal did not permit the petitioner to urge the point does not mean the petitioner did not raise the point If he "raised" the point - as indeed he did - it is clear that the Tribunal did not decide the point In our opinion, this aspect of the case falls within the category of those cases where the question raised has not been decided by the Tribunal.