9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to raise a new ground before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. Justification of not permitting the Revenue to put forward a plea regarding the exclusion of a specific amount. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved the interpretation of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the deduction of certain amounts by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment year 1974-75. One of the deductions in question was a sum of Rs. 4,86,000 representing dividends declared in 1972. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention that this sum had already been deducted previously and ordered its deletion from the capital base. The Revenue appealed this decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, claiming that the Surtax Officer intended to disallow an amount of Rs. 6,99,841, which was the dividend for the year 1972. The Tribunal, however, refused to entertain this new ground raised by the Revenue, stating that it was not part of the appeal before the first appellate authority. The High Court considered the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to entertain new grounds not raised before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow new grounds to be raised, especially when necessary to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. The High Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal erred in refusing to consider the new ground raised by the Revenue, as per the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide on the additional grounds based on their merits. Regarding the specific plea raised by the Revenue to exclude Rs. 6,99,841 instead of Rs. 4,86,000, the High Court reframed the first question of law to address this issue. The Court answered this question in the negative and in favor of the Revenue, indicating that the Appellate Tribunal should have permitted the Revenue to put forward the plea regarding the higher exclusion amount. As the second question related to the merits of the case, the High Court did not provide an answer, as the Tribunal needed to first consider whether the additional ground should be entertained. Ultimately, the High Court made no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
|
