9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the phrase "total income of assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer" in section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Basis for calculating the fee payable for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the Phrase "Total Income of Assessee as Computed by the Assessing Officer": The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "total income of assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer" in section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the fee should be based on the total income after giving effect to the appellate order of the CIT(A), while the revenue contended that it should be based on the original assessment order. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and noted that the appellant should pay the appeal fee only for the impugned order and not for any other order of assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal fee should be levied on the total income computed as a result of the order being challenged in the appeal, not on the original assessment. The Tribunal cited an illustration where if an assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 10 lakhs but reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs after the first appeal, the fee for the second appeal should be on Rs. 5 lakhs, not Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal also observed that section 253(6) does not mention "first assessment" or "original assessment" but uses the phrase "total income of the assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer in the case to which the appeal relates." This implies that the total income should be the one computed after giving effect to the appellate order. 2. Basis for Calculating the Fee Payable for Filing an Appeal: The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and noted that the fee payable under section 253(6) is "fee" and not "tax," and it should relate to the benefit or relief being claimed by the payer. The Tribunal found it unreasonable to compel the appellant to pay a fee for parts of the order not being contested in the appeal. The Tribunal compared the situation to civil litigation, where the court fee for a second appeal is based on the valuation of the challenged appellate order, not the original judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the fee for filing an appeal before the Tribunal should be based on the total income computed after giving effect to the appellate order of the first Appellate Authority. However, the Accountant Member disagreed, stating that the fee should be based on the income computed by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order. He cited Form No. 36 and circulars issued by the ITAT, which indicate that the total income should be taken as computed by the Assessing Officer without considering the appellate order. The Third Member, after considering the differing views, concurred with the Accountant Member. He emphasized that the language of section 253(6) is clear and unambiguous, and the fee should be based on the total income as computed by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order. He noted that the Legislature has consciously used the words "as computed by the Assessing Officer," which should not be ignored. The Third Member also referenced the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, which supported the view that the fee should be based on the original assessment order. He concluded that the assessee should pay the fee on the basis of the income computed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) without taking into account the relief granted by the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal, by majority view, held that the fee payable for filing an appeal before the Tribunal under section 253(6) should be calculated on the basis of the total income as computed by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, without considering the effect of the appellate order of the first Appellate Authority.
|
