9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in refusing to entertain the plea of the Department that the income from the lease rent of the cinema building was assessable under the head "Income from other sources" instead of under the head "Income from house property". Summary: Issue 1: Tribunal's Refusal to Entertain the Department's Plea The Tribunal refused to entertain the Department's plea on two grounds: (a) The Income-tax Officer had not taken this plea at any stage in the past. (b) Acceptance of the plea might result in the enhancement of income. The Tribunal stated: "It is, thus, apparent that at no stage in the past, the Department has taken the stand that the income from the lease rent of the cinema building was assessable under the head 'Other sources' as per provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are, therefore, unable to entertain the above ground at this stage." Jurisdiction and Powers of the Tribunal The court examined whether the Tribunal had the power or jurisdiction to entertain a new plea not raised earlier. Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act was read, which states: "The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit." The court noted that the words "as it thinks fit" confer powers of the widest amplitude on the Appellate Tribunal, including the power to entertain new grounds. Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Rule 11 allows the Tribunal to decide the appeal on grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, provided the affected party has had a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Relevant Case Law The court referred to several decisions supporting the view that the Tribunal can entertain new grounds: - CIT v. Ice Suppliers Corporation [1967] 64 ITR 195 (Punj): Affirmed the Tribunal's jurisdiction to dismiss an application on a new ground. - Madhu Jayanti P. Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 277 (Cal): Held that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to allow new grounds. - CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC): Stated that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to admit permissible allowances on new grounds. - CIT v. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC): Confirmed the Tribunal's power to allow new grounds. - D. M. Neterwalla v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 880 (Bom): Allowed the Department to raise a new contention for the first time. - CIT v. Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co. [1978] 111 ITR 529 (Bom): Held that the Tribunal can allow new points if no new facts are required and the other side is given an opportunity to respond. Conclusion The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to entertain the Department's plea. The Tribunal has the power to entertain new grounds, and the reasons given by the Tribunal for not entertaining the plea were not valid in law. The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|
