- (1.) WE have heard Shri D.D. Chopra learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Amit Shukla learned Counsel for the respondents at length and perused the records. In these three appeals common substantial question of law involved hence decided by common judgement.
(2.) APPEAL has been admitted today itself on the following substantial question of law: Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to delete the addition by following the Judgment reported in : 262 ITR 407 Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. C.I.T. moreso when it has been overruled by amendment of the Act retrospectively? It has not been disputed that the ratio of the Judgment reported in : 262 ITR 407 Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. C.I.T. has been virtually overruled by amending the Act by addition of Section with retrospective effect w.e.f. 15.11.1972. The Tribunal though relied upon the Judgment of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra) but failed to consider the case on merit and impact of the amending provision contained in Section , which was inserted with retrospective effect by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004.
(3.) SHRI Amit Shukla learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no need to remand the matter since the Tribunal had entered into the merit of the case. However, from the record, it appears that third member of the Tribunal namely Shri Phool Singh had decided the matter on merit but other members had not applied their mind on merit. Decision of the Tribunal means the decision rendered by all three members of the Tribunal collectively or by majority opinion. In the present case, the tribunal had not exercised power deciding the issue in question collectively on merit, keeping in view the amended provisions.;