9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to allow raising additional grounds of appeal. 2. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to permit raising grounds of appeal. 3. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act regarding the commencement of the business. Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to permit the assessee company to raise additional grounds of appeal not mentioned initially. The Tribunal held that an appellant cannot challenge an assessment on a ground not raised before the lower court. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the appellate court has the inherent jurisdiction to consider any legal issue arising from the order under appeal. The High Court clarified that while the appellate court may exercise discretion in allowing new grounds, it has the authority to address any legal question relevant to the appeal. 2. The second issue concerns the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain new grounds of appeal. The Tribunal contended that an appellant cannot introduce new grounds if not raised before the lower court, citing Section 31(2A) of the Income-tax Act. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 31(2A) does not restrict the appellate court from considering new legal points. The High Court affirmed that the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were not barred from deciding on issues raised by the assessee company, even if not previously raised. 3. The final issue involves the interpretation of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act regarding the commencement of the business. The dispute centered on whether the business of the assessee company commenced after March 31, 1936, as required for certain benefits. The Commissioner argued that the business began before the specified date. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee company, stating that the business succession occurred when the Hindu undivided family took over, signifying a new business start. The Court rejected the Commissioner's assertion that the business continuity from an earlier appointment invalidated the claim, emphasizing that a clear discontinuance and fresh commencement occurred. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal to consider new legal grounds. Additionally, the Court determined that the business of the assessee company commenced after the specified date, entitling it to the benefits under the relevant proviso. The judgment clarified the appellate courts' authority to address legal issues and provided a detailed analysis of the business succession in the case.
|
