9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of additional grounds claiming exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Appealability of charging interest under section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Additional Grounds Claiming Exemption under Section 11: The Tribunal was approached by the assessee to admit additional grounds claiming that the income for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 was exempt under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue opposed this, arguing that the additional grounds did not arise from the order of the AAC and involved questions of fact that were not previously investigated. The Tribunal held that the additional grounds did not arise from the orders of the ITO or the AAC. It emphasized that a ground could only be raised before the Tribunal if it was a pure question of law going to the root of the matter and did not involve any investigation into facts. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Moti Ram v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 646, which stated that the Appellate Tribunal has discretion to refuse permission to raise new questions of fact that require further evidence. The Tribunal concluded that no foundational facts had been laid to attract the provisions of section 11, and thus, it was not proper or legal to allow the assessee to raise such grounds at the hearing of the appeal. The judgment cited several cases, including Manji Dana v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 582 (SC) and CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Private Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj), to support the position that new grounds involving factual investigations cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal was correct in refusing to permit the assessee to take the additional grounds on the question of applicability of section 11 of the Act. 2. Appealability of Charging Interest under Section 217: The second issue was whether the charging of interest under section 217 was appealable. The Tribunal initially held that charging interest under section 217 was not appealable under section 246 of the Act. However, the judgment analyzed various judicial opinions and concluded that where the charging of interest forms a composite part of the assessment order and the quantum of assessed tax is under challenge, the charging of interest under section 217 cannot be bifurcated and is appealable along with the assessment matter. The judgment referred to the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Daimler Benz A.G. [1977] 108 ITR 961, which held that an assessee denying his liability to be assessed under the Act could appeal against an order of the ITO, including the charging of interest. The judgment also cited decisions from the Gujarat High Court (CIT v. Sharma Construction Co. [1975] 100 ITR 603), the Delhi High Court (CIT v. Mahabir Parshad and Sons [1980] 125 ITR 165), and the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CIT v. Raghubir Singh and Sons [1980] 125 ITR 256), which supported the view that an appeal could be made against the charging of interest when it is part of a composite assessment order. The judgment disagreed with the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Geeta Ram Kali Ram [1980] 121 ITR 708, which had a contrary view, and held that the assessee could challenge the charging of interest under section 217 before the Appellate Tribunal. Conclusion: 1. The Tribunal was correct in refusing to permit the assessee to take the additional grounds on the question of applicability of section 11 of the Act. 2. The assessee was permitted to raise the question of penal interest under section 217 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal. Since the answers were equally divided, no order as to costs was made.
|
