9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 466 - AT - Income TaxPower of Tribunal to admit Additional Ground - assessee contesting jurisdiction assumed by AO u/s 153A - assessee contended that the ground has been taken in the memorandum of appeal, therefore, it is not an additional ground for which leave is required from the Tribunal, whereas Revenue submitted that ground does not arise out of the order of lower authorities as this question was never taken up before any one of them - Held that - A person can be aggrieved only if a ground had been raised and it is decided against him. S. 253(1) bars a ground which was not raised and not decided by the CIT(A) because there can be no grievance in respect of a matter which is not raised at all. Therefore, ground taken in the memorandum of appeal cannot be a ground validly taken as a grievance from the order of lower authorities. However, on question that whether, such a ground can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal, it is held that Tribunal is not confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the CIT(A) but has the discretion to allow a new ground to be raised. If a pure question of law arises for which facts are on record of the authorities below, the question should be allowed to be raised if it is necessary to assess the correct tax liability. The submission that the ground could not be raised earlier as the assessee did not have the services of an advocate at its command is reasonable and bona-fide - Additional ground admitted.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 153A. 2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4). 3. Applicability of the Container Corporation of India Ltd. decision. 4. Definition of "infrastructure facility" under Section 80IA(4). 5. Binding nature of CBDT circulars. 6. Classification of Customs Ports under Customs Act, 1962. 7. Classification of Container Freight Station as Inland Port. 8. Legality and jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 153A: The Tribunal examined whether the scope of assessment under Section 153A includes additions not based on incriminating material found during the search. The assessee argued that the assessment order was without jurisdiction and bad in law as the jurisdiction under Section 153A was vitiated. The Tribunal noted that the ground was not raised before the lower authorities but admitted it as an additional ground, emphasizing that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow new grounds if they involve questions of law arising from the facts on record. 2. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IA(4): The assessee contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,25,77,637/- under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance on merits. It was argued that the deduction was previously allowed in the original assessment under Section 143(3) and the disallowance was merely a change of opinion. The Tribunal noted that the issue of deduction under Section 80IA(4) was already considered in the original assessment and the facts remained unchanged. 3. Applicability of the Container Corporation of India Ltd. Decision: The assessee argued that the facts of their case were different from the Container Corporation of India Ltd. decision relied upon by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the Container Corporation case considered similar assessment years and arguments. However, certain relevant materials were not referenced in the Delhi Bench order, which may have some bearing on the issue. 4. Definition of "Infrastructure Facility" under Section 80IA(4): The assessee claimed that they were covered by the definition of "infrastructure facility" as "Ports" under the Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i). The Tribunal examined whether the Container Freight Station (CFS) qualifies as an infrastructure facility under the said section. The Tribunal noted the arguments regarding the classification of CFS as an Inland Port and the relevant notifications and letters from CBDT. 5. Binding Nature of CBDT Circulars: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to follow circular No. 793 dated 23rd June 2000, and clarification dated 16th December 2005 issued by the CBDT, which are binding on the Income Tax Authorities. The Tribunal considered the binding nature of these circulars and their applicability to the case. 6. Classification of Customs Ports under Customs Act, 1962: The assessee contended that sub-clause (aa) of Section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962, clarifies that Customs Ports are places identified and demarcated for unloading imported cargo and loading exported cargo, thereby qualifying CFS as Customs Ports for the benefit of Section 80IA(4)(i). The Tribunal examined this classification in the context of the Customs Act and its relevance to the Income Tax Act. 7. Classification of Container Freight Station as Inland Port: In the alternative, the assessee argued that the CFS is an Inland Port and qualifies as an infrastructure facility under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal considered the arguments and relevant definitions to determine if CFS meets the criteria for an Inland Port. 8. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) Order: The assessee argued that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to pass the order and if the order was legally sustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the jurisdiction under Section 153A, emphasizing that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow new grounds involving questions of law arising from the facts on record. The Tribunal also considered the merits of the disallowance under Section 80IA(4) and the applicability of various circulars, notifications, and definitions relevant to the case. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed examination of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents.
|
