9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 43B for deduction of customs and excise duty. 2. Contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Third Member in reframing questions. 3. Maintainability of rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. 4. Application of inherent powers of the Tribunal in rectification matters. Analysis: Issue 1: The dispute revolved around the deduction under section 43B of the Income-tax Act for customs and excise duty. The Third Member reframed the controversy to focus on the treatment of duties paid on raw materials in valuing closing stock, rather than the initial question posed. The Tribunal noted that the real controversy was about the working out of the closing stock, not the entitlement to the deduction. The application challenged the Third Member's authority to reframe the issue. Issue 2: The assessee argued that the Third Member exceeded his jurisdiction by reframing the question and expressing an opinion on an unaddressed point. Citing precedents, the assessee contended that the Third Member's role was limited to answering referred points of difference. The Tribunal clarified that the Third Member's opinion did not dispose of the appeal, and the matter would still go before the regular Bench for final decision. Issue 3: The Tribunal examined the maintainability of the rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act. It held that as the appeal was still pending, the application was not maintainable against the Third Member's opinion. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under sub-section (1) of section 254 must dispose of the appeal, which was not the case here. Therefore, the rectification application was deemed not maintainable. Issue 4: Regarding the invocation of inherent powers for rectification, the Tribunal emphasized that such powers are exercised in exceptional circumstances causing prejudice to a party. In this case, the Tribunal found no prejudice caused to the assessee by the Third Member's opinion. The Tribunal reiterated that the appeal must be finally disposed of by the regular Bench, which could consider aspects not addressed by the Third Member. Therefore, the application to rectify the Third Member's order was dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the Third Member's opinion did not dispose of the appeal, and the matter would proceed before the regular Bench for final decision. The Tribunal highlighted the limited role of the Third Member and the necessity for the regular Bench to pass an order in accordance with the majority opinion after hearing all parties involved.
|
