- (1.) The questions which have come up for answer by us in this reference are as follows : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Assessing Officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction in including sales tax liability of Rs. 32,40,408 to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263, which according to the Tribunal, was on limited issue, that is, regarding recomputation of relief under Section 80HH, when, in fact, the assessment was set aside as a whole by the Commissioner of Income-tax while passing order under Section 263? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the departmental appeal by accepting the cross-objection of the assessee without deciding the correctness of the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was challenged by the Department before the Tribunal ?"
(2.) The brief facts of this case are as follows : "On or about March 25, 1985, the assessment was made for the first time by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1984-85. We are concerned only with that single year. On January 7, 1986, the Income-tax Officer purported to rectify and amend the original assessment order. The most significant point, and indeed the only point of this rectification for our purpose was that a sum upwards of Rs. 32,00,000 was sought to be added as sales tax receipt by the assessee, which receipt had allegedly not been made over by them to the sales tax authorities."
(3.) Needless to mention the assessee was aggrieved by the order of rectification and it preferred due departmental appeals.;