9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1971 (9) TMI 32 - HC - Income TaxScope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain a new claim for exemption made before him for the first time
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) to entertain a new claim for exemption not raised before the Income-tax Officer (ITO). 2. Scope and ambit of the powers of the AAC under Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Interpretation of the term "assessment" in the context of Section 251. 4. Applicability of judicial precedents in determining the powers of the AAC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the AAC to Entertain a New Claim for Exemption: The primary issue in this case was whether the AAC could entertain a new claim for exemption under Section 84, which was not raised before the ITO during the initial assessment. The assessee, a company engaged in copper engraving and manufacturing of labels, failed to claim an exemption for a portion of its profit during the assessment year 1963-64. This omission led to the profit being taxed. The assessee included this claim in its memorandum of appeal against the assessment order. The AAC refused to entertain this claim, stating that it was not raised before the ITO. The Tribunal, however, found that the AAC should have entertained the claim, leading to the reference question for the High Court's opinion. 2. Scope and Ambit of the Powers of the AAC under Section 251: Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, outlines the powers of the AAC in disposing of an appeal. The AAC can confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment, or set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the ITO. These powers are almost identical to those under Section 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The judgment emphasized that the AAC's powers are not limited to the points of grievance raised by the assessee but extend to the entire subject-matter of the assessment. The AAC can revise any part of the assessment, whether in favor of or against the assessee. 3. Interpretation of the Term "Assessment": The term "assessment" was a crucial point of contention. The assessee argued that "assessment" means the ultimate amount the assessee is liable to pay, allowing the AAC to entertain new claims not raised before the ITO. The revenue contended that "assessment" refers to the process of determining the various items of income or deductions considered by the ITO. The court, referencing several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, concluded that "assessment" refers to the items of income or deductions subjected to the assessment process by the ITO. The AAC's power is limited to revising these items and does not extend to new claims not considered by the ITO. 4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents: The court examined various judicial decisions to determine the scope of the AAC's powers. The leading decision was Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which established that the AAC's powers extend to revising the entire assessment, not just the points of grievance raised by the assessee. The court also considered the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, which affirmed the AAC's plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. However, the court clarified that these powers are confined to the subject-matter of the assessment and do not allow the AAC to entertain new claims not raised before the ITO. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the AAC has the jurisdiction to entertain claims related to items of income or deductions that have been subjected to the assessment process by the ITO. In this case, the portion of profit exempt under Section 84 was processed and taxed by the ITO, making it part of the subject-matter of the assessment. Therefore, the AAC had the power to consider whether this portion of the profit was rightly taxed, despite the claim not being raised before the ITO. The court answered the reference question in the affirmative, stating that the AAC should have entertained the claim for exemption under Section 84. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee. Judgment: Question answered in the affirmative.
|
