In any case, the judgments passed by all the Wealth-tax A uthorities show that it was at no stage in dispute that the operations for establishment of the unit had been commenced by the respondent prior to I st April, 1957. Para 5 of the statement of the case mentions that the the wealth-tax officer disallowed the claim on the ground that unit was set up prior to !st April, 1957. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also in his judgment said: "In this view of the matter, the appellant set up the undertaking even prior to !st April, 1957 as operations were carried out prior to that date for the establishment of the undertaking. The operations consisted of the seeking of permission from the Goverrunent to instal the unit, and placing of orders with manufacturers of machinery and advancing of moneys towards the purchase of machinery." The Tribunal also disallowed the claim on the basis that the respondent commenced operations for setting up the unit earlier than !st April, 1957. It does not appear to be necessary for us to express any opinion as to the particular stage at which it can be said that a company corrunences operations for the establishment of a unit. In the present case, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that, whatever be the exact date of corrunencement of the operations for establishment of this unit by the respondent, it was certainly before 1st April, 1957; and we consider that that fact, by itself, is sufficient to entitle the respondent to claim the exemption. The Commissioner cannot, at this stage, be allowed to raise a new question and ask this Court to decide that the date of commencement of the operations for establishment of the unit by the respondent was different from that accepted by the Tribunal. That question was not raised and dealt with by the Tribunal. It is not even a question that might have been raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal might have failed to deal with, nor is it a question which may not have been raised before the Tribunal and, yet, was dealt with by it. On the principle laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Incometax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Narigation Co., Ltd.,(l) such a question could not be canvassed before the High Court and cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court. The question referred to the High Court had to be answered on the basis that the respondent did commence operations for establishing this unit before I st April, 1957; and the further finding of fact recorded by theTribunal is that a sum of Rs. 1,43,727/- had been invested in setting up the unit by 30th September, 1956, which was the valuation date for the assessment year 1957-58. The very first assessment year after the conunencement of the operations for establishment of the unit was this assessnient year 1957-58, In the Wealth Tax Act, assessment
