w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s Ajay Forgings (P.)Ltd

    Income Tax Reference Appeal No. 8 of 1998

    Decided On, 09 July 2002

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJOY NATH RAY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

    For the Appearing Parties: J.P. Khaitan, S.N. Dutta, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1) THE single question referred to us is as follows :


"on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was wrong in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the issue for the assessment year 1986-87. "


(2) THE accounting year of the assessee was up to June 30. The assessee received a debit note of Rs. 1,05,420 on July 15, 1984, but the assessee had claimed the deduction for the assessment year 1985-86, the previous year in respect whereof ended on June 30, 1984. The extra gap of one year from 1984-85, i. e, between the accounting year and the assessment year, occurred because the assessee's accounting year did not end with March 31.


(3) THE Tribunal opined that the debit note being received 15 days after the end of the accounting year, it could not be claimed on a mercantile basis in respect of that previous year; its reason was that there cannot be a debt unless it is made known.


(4) WE are quite in agreement with that line of reasoning and the Department also has not raised any issue about it. The Department is aggrieved by one sentence which is at the end of paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's order dated March 16, 1996. That sentence is as follows :


"however, as the date of receipt falls in the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1986-87, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of the assessee in the assessment year 1986-87. "


(5) THE Department submits that as the Tribunal was considering the claim of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86, the Tribunal could either allow or disallow the claim for that assessment year, and it had jurisdiction to decide either way. But when dealing with the case for that assessment year it could not pass any remark or give any direction upon the Assessing Officer for quite another assessment year, viz. , 1986-87,


(6) WE find from the direction given by the Tribunal that it did not order the Assessing Officer to allow the claim in regard to the debit note for the assessment year 1986-87. It only directed a consideration of the matter by the Assessing Officer in that assessment year.


(7) IN view of the reasoning of the Tribunal's judgment given in regard to the debit note two points clearly emerge :


(i) That the debit note could not be claimed for the assessment year 1985-86, and, (ii) that the debit note fell appropriately for consideration in the assessment year 1986-87, whether it be actually allowed in that year or not.


(8) SAYING both these things in the order of the Tribunal it did nothing more than render completeness to its order. If nothing had been said about the falling of the debit note appropriately into the assessment year 1986-87, the result of the Tribunal's order would still be the same but it would be just a little more vague and just a little less certai

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n. (9) WE are of the opinion that no judicial authority exceeds its jurisdiction by merely clarifying and stating succinctly what its decision is, provided the decision is substantially within jurisdiction. (10) THE question is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and in the negative.
O R