9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise and give due legal relief owing to, the fact that 'Cash Compensatory Support' received by the appellant of the amount of Rs. 30,96,943.20 was in the nature of capital receipt and that it was not taxable, notwithstanding the fact that the same has been treated as a 'revenue receipt' and included in the taxable profits of the appellant. 2. That the learned IAC (Asstt.) and CIT (Appeals) failed to recognise, and give due legal relief owing to, the fact that 'Drawback of Duty' of the amount of Rs. 23,02,930.73 was in the nature of capital receipt and that it was not taxable notwithstanding the fact that the same has been treated as a 'revenue receipt' and included in the taxable profit of the appellant. 3. That the learned IAC (Asstt.) and CIT (Appeals) failed to recognise, and give due legal relief owing to, the fact that 'income from sale of Import Entitlement' of the amount of Rs. 4,56,517.70 was in the nature of capital receipt and that it was not taxable not-withstanding the fact that the same has been treated as a 'revenue receipt' and included in the taxable profit of the appellant. 4. That without prejudice to any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, the appellant also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hurdles if under the Law an item of income is not to be taxed at all. He submitted that the matter under consideration required to be viewed from a jurisprudential plane. He submitted that the primary purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to levy and collect income-tax after fixing the tax liability according to Act. He said that the Scheme of the Act did not contemplate any restrictions on the ambit and power of the Tribunal by any notions of finality or subject matter of appeal etc. He submitted that the functions of the assessing authority, first appellate authority and of the Appellate Tribunal as a second appellate authority were identical, and in a sense complementary to each other, although the Tribunal functions independently and that is why there is no lis or dispute before it as in a civil litigation. He submitted that the proceedings before the First and Second Appellate Authority were also continuation of assessment proceedings. He referred to the provisions of Sections 250, 253 and 254 and submitted that there were no restrictions placed in the Act on the admission of new or additional grounds of appeal. He pointed out that u/s 253 of the Act, an assessee can file an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27-10-1984 and the Civil Writ Petition No. 663/1985 filed by the Department had also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in limine on 22-3-1985 (copy filed). Again referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v J.K. Hosiery Factory [1986] 159 ITR 85, he submitted that if there is a doubt whether or not jurisdiction is there, an interpretation which favours existence of jurisdiction should be preferred i.e. the one which favours the remedy rather than that which favours its shut off. 3. Shri R. Ganeshan, the learned counsel for the Intervener M/s Khosla, New Delhi (ITA No. 1960/Del/86) said that the Intervener had 100 per cent exports. He reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the assessee by Shri Sharma and emphasised that the Tribunal does not act like a Civil Court and it has to decide regarding the taxes payable by the assessee. He also submitted that in the earlier Special Bench decision in the case of National Thermal Power Corpn. v. IAC [1985] 12 ITD 99 (Delhi), the decisions of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 and of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388 had been misunderstood. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 722 (SC). In this connection, he referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT [1984] 149 ITR 7 at 17, wherein it was held that in case of two judgments of the same Court (in that case of the Supreme Court), the judgment of a larger Bench had to prevail over the other judgments. He also referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Western Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 54 at pages 57 and 58 wherein it was held that where there was not merely substantial but almost full material on the record to enable the consideration of a claim for Special deduction u/s 80-I, the AAC had jurisdiction to consider the question of relief u/s 80-I for the first time. 7. Shri O.S. Bajpai, the learned Senior Departmental Representative worked assiduously, took great pains and addressed us exhaustive arguments by referring to case law. At the outset, he submitted that out of the additional grounds sought to be raised, at best only the admissibility of the ground relating to the CCS could justify a second look if at all, as in respect of the remaining grounds concerning DBK and IE the jurisdiction sought to be given by the assessee could not hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncept of finality in regard to the portion of the order of ITO/AAC/CIT (Appeals) not appealed against is very relevant. The expressions "the appeal" and "thereon" u/s 254 limit the scope of the Tribunal's power "to pass such orders as it thinks fit", in regard to the subject matter of the appeal or the appeal before it. If the matter is not kept alive, a new ground cannot be raised nor can even the decision of the Supreme Court be taken advantage of. A decision of the Supreme Court does not operate retrospectively. The heading to Section 253 is also relevant in this regard. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585 is an authority for the proposition that marginal note or heading to a section is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration in construing the ambit of the Section. 3. Distinction between 'jurisdiction' and 'restrictions'. The Tribunal cannot find a remedy for the assessee where it is barred. Jurisdiction can be exercised by the Tribunal only in relation to a new ground if it is related to the existing subject matter of appeal and not outside it. If the AAC could not admit a ground, the Tribunal could also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Cellulose Products of India Ltd. 9. Rule 11 is procedural : It only relates to the exercise of discretion within the subject matter of appeal i.e. to grounds which form an approach, argument, aspect, contention, issue, perspective, plea or point related to the existing subject matter of appeal and all are related to the word 'ground' in this Rule as meaning reason and not a new issue altogether. 10. Effect of abandonment, admission or concession (Already dealt with under Sl. No. 2). 8. In reply Shri G.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the principle of Stare Decisis applies to Courts and not to Tribunals and that this principle does not restrain a Special Bench from considering decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and then to come to the same or a different conclusion. He also submitted that the judicial propriety had already been observed in this case since the President of the Tribunal had thought fit to constitute a Bench of Five Members u/s 255(3) noticing that the Special Bench which decided the case of National Thermal Power Corpn. consisted of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the Appellate Tribunal derived its power to permit additional grounds of appeal from See. 254 and inherent power to do substantial justice. He submitted that the express grant of a statutory power carried with it with necessary implication all powers necessary and inherent therein. Comparing the powers of the AAC with those of the Tribunal, Shri Sharma explained that the powers of the AAC were all specified in the provisions and excluded inherent powers. He also submitted that 'grounds' meant grounds of appeal and not reasons. Lastly he submitted that the exercise of discretion was not to be confused with the exercise of jurisdiction. 9. In reply Shri R. Ganeshan, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. submitted that the subject matter of appeal means the appeal itself. Referring to the provisions of Sec. 297(2), Sh. Ganeshan submitted that assessment proceedings included the stages from the Income-tax Officer's assessment to the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal as also further proceedings of reference to High Court and thence to Supreme Court. Referring to the consideration by the ITO he submitted that it referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the view taken was that the additional grounds could not be permitted to be raised :--- Order of Delhi Bench 'A' in National Thermal Power Corpn's case, Order of Delhi Bench 'C' in Modi Spg. Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 1090 and 2758 (Delhi) of 1985, dated 30-5-1988], Order of Delhi Bench 'A' in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2918 (Delhi) of 1986, dated 13-12-1985] and Order of Delhi Bench 'E' in the case of Radhika Wool Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1940 (Delhi) of 1985, dated 13-1-1985]. Since earlier decisions referred to above had been rendered by Special Benches, consisting of three Members, the President in exercise of his discretion, constituted the present Special Bench consisting of five Members. This Special Bench can, therefore, consider whether the view taken in the earlier Special Bench needs any reconsideration. This view was expressly laid down by the Madras High Court with reference to See. 254 of the IT Act in CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.). The submission made on behalf of the Revenue that the Constitution of this Special Bench of five Members was not necessary or that it lacked judicial propriety or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a principle of law which has become settled by a series of decisions is generally binding on the Courts and should be followed in similar cases. This rule is based on expediency and public policy and although generally it should be strictly adhered to by the Courts, it is not universally applicable. Thus the principle of stare decisis really is that the Court must always hesitate to overrule decisions which are not manifestly erroneous or mischievous and which have stood for many years unchallenged and which from their nature, may reasonably be supposed to have affected the conduct of a large portion of the community in matters relating to rights of property. Having regard to the nature of the principle of stare decisis, we are of the view that it will not come in the way of the Special Bench in considering the matter afresh. 13. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative has put forward the case that only such a ground can be raised before the Appellate Tribunal for the first time which represents a new or additional approach, argument, aspect, claim, contention, issue, item, plea, point, question or submission which is connected with the grounds or the subject matter of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC)]. However, as held in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC), the power of enhancement cannot be exercised by discovering new sources. This was further clarified in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) by saying that AAC has no jurisdiction to assess a source of income which is not disclosed either in the return or in the assessment order. This leads to two results. Firstly, the scope of the jurisdiction of the AAC extends to assessment as well as enhancement of income/penalty resulting from the sources disclosed in the return or considered in the assessment. Secondly, the I consideration" by the assessing authority is of taxable income from such sources. The consideration may be on the basis of an admission, consent, or tender by the assessee or it may be after discussion due to a contest put in by the assessee. Such a consideration is mandated not only under the Income-tax Act, 1961 but also by virtue of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, according to which no tax can be levied or collected without authority of law. The only thing which an assessing authority can be said to have not considered is income which falls out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manick Sons [1969] 74 ITR 1 (SC), it was observed that though the power of the Tribunal is wide, but it is a judicial power. As held in CIT v. Pratapsingh [1987] 164 ITR 431 (Raj.), the wordings or phraseology used in Section 254(1) know no limitation. The learned D. R. sought to contend that by the use of the expression "the appeal" in Section 254 the scope of the Tribunal is limited to the points arising out of that appellate order and not dehors it. In our view this is not so, When the Act refers to the right of appeal, it says that an appeal may be filed and after it is filed, it is referred to as the appeal. There is nothing more to it, and in any event does not decide the issue before us as to what is meant by the appeal. 16. The next expression which came up for consideration is the preposition used in section 254(1) namely "thereon". There is unanimity of view that "thereon" means the subject matter of appeal i.e. the appeal itself. In fact in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Venkata Rama Lingeshwara Rice Mill [1977] 39 STC 57 (AP) (FB), it was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the absence of the expression "thereon" does not make much of a difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o into every point which has a bearing on the determination of the chargeable income even if the parties before it have not taken those points and to permit the parties to take such points subject only to the limitation that the appellant shall not be placed in a position worse than what it was in before he filed the appeal. 16.2 The argument that by showing an amount as income in the return, the assessee must be taken to have abandoned the claim is without substance because, the question of abandonment would arise only when it has been taken earlier and deliberately given up and not where the amount has been shown as income without knowing the correct implications of the tax laws. Again, the cases relied on by the Revenue to show that the grounds were not entertained where the assessee was not aggrieved indicate that the assessee had consciously given up the ground taken earlier and thus estopped from saying that he was any further aggrieved. The argument that there should be some finality to the orders of the authorities below, is also misconceived because, firstly the finality attaches u/s 250(4) only to the order of the Tribunal and there is no question of any finality with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wide discretion to the Tribunal to give or to refuse leave to raise additional grounds. The appellant can raise the additional ground with the permission of the Court and the Court can permit it to be argued, if for some good cause a vital point has been overlooked. Leave is not to be granted unless particular reasons are shown for it. The Appellate Court may grant leave but it is not bound to do so. The provision aims at substantial justice, The only procedural restriction or safeguard placed in this Rule is that if the Tribunal rests its decision on any other ground, it shall give to the party who may be affected thereby a sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground. The provision in an Act may confer, create or bar, the jurisdiction of authorities in regard to certain matters whereas the Rules lay down as to how the jurisdiction so created or conferred under the Act is to be exercised or regulated. Thus in cases where the Act contains no restrictions as in the present case of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, we have to assume that the jurisdiction is inherent with the Appellate Tribunal to permit additional grounds of appeal to be raised before it, subject to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Departmental Authorities and that all questions whether of law or of fact which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court specifically held that the right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the plea raised by him. It also held that if for reasons recorded by departmental. authorities in respect of contention raised by the assessee, grant of relief to him on another ground is justified, it will be open to the departmental authorities and the Tribunal and indeed they would be under a duty to grant that relief. Thus the power of the Tribunal is widened only to fix the correct liability to tax. In the case of S. Nelliappan, it was again held that in hearing an appeal, the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal and in deciding the appeal, the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. In the case of Ram Kristo Mandal v. Dhankisto Mandal AIR 1969 SC 204, the plea as to the invalidity of exchange of raiyatwari holding u/s 27 of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation raised at the stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llahabad High Court held that the admission that certain sums of money had been received by the assessee would be an admission as to a state of fact but whether the receipt can be considered as taxable income is quite another matter and the consideration of that question leads into the realm of law. If the ITO assessees an assessee upon a receipt which is not taxable in law, it is always open to the assessee to take the case in appeal to examine the validity of the assessment to tax of a receipt which, though admitted, was not taxable at all. Again in Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.'s case, the assessee had wrongly Included some income in its return for the particular year. It was held that that fact by itself could not confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income if it did not pertain to that year. But the High Court held that such an admission did not operate as an estoppel. In Ram Kumar Jalan v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 30 (Bom.), in the return filed by the assessee, certain income was treated as a revenue receipt. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee raised an additional ground of appeal by means of an application that the sum received by it was not a revenue r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be raised before the Tribunal. To the mere effect were the decisions of the Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Mysore, P H and Rajasthan High Courts. However, in CIT v. Gilbert Barker Mfg. Co. [1978] 111 ITR 529 (Bom.) and in CIT v. Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 454 (Mad.), it was held that if new facts are required, the additional grounds would not be permitted. There is unanimity of view that if there is pure question of law, additional ground has to be allowed. In fact in the following cases, it was held that such a point was necessarily to be allowed to be raised if it went to the root of the matter or assessment or jurisdiction of the assessing Officer : 1. Byramji Co's case, 2. Ganga Das Sarda v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 799 (Pat.), 3. Gundathur Thimmappa Sons v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 70 (Mys.), 4. N.A. Narielwalla's case, and 5. CIT v. Belapur Sugar Allied Industries Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 404 (Bom.). If the grounds involve mixed questions of law and fact where there is material on the record, the decisions uniformly are that such grounds are to be allowed. In fact, it is only the following cases that it has been laid down that the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 22. The learned D.R. had referred to a number of decisions of Madras High Court in STC. Those decisions were all under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In Easun Engg. Co. Ltd.'s case it was held that so long as the assessee had not disputed the turnover in the appeal before the AAC, he could not straightaway file an appeal before the Tribunal in respect of that turnover. To the same effect was the decision in State of Madras v. Spencer Co. Ltd. [1974] 34 STC 249 (Mad.) and Doveton Cafe's case. However, in Dy. Commissioner v. G. Govindaraju Chettiar [1980] 46 STC 341 (Mad.) where also the case was under Tamil Nadu. General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it was held by Ram Prasada Rao, CJ. acting as Third Judge on a difference of opinion between two Judges, that the powers of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are not of the same amplitude as that conferred on the Appellate Tribunal functioning under the Indian Income-tax Act. Having regard to these observations, therefore, the decisions in STC relied upon on behalf of the Department would not assist it. 23. In decided cases, the expressions, argument, aspect of or approach, claim, contention, issue, item, plea, point, question, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is not an immutable concept but it can be expanded or enlarged with the leave of the Appellate Tribunal under Rule 11. This decision, therefore, does not come in the way of the assessee. 25. The next decision is of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254, wherein it was held that where, in appeal to the AAC by an assessee against an order of assessment, the assessee has not questioned the decision of the officer on a point decided, and the AAC has not in his order considered that point, and the Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be permitted to raise that question in an appeal to it against the order of the AAC, the High Court held that the discretion was rightly exercised by the Appellate Tribunal, under Rule 11 against the assessee because the admission and conduct had not been explained by the assessee. This decision thus proceeded on its own facts, even then the decision of the Tribunal was upheld because of latches on the part of the assessee to explain. 26. The next decision is of the Supreme Court in Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd.'s case. This decision has often been misquoted or misunderst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity Trust's case that in case of two judgments of the Supreme Court, the judgment of a larger Bench has to prevail over the other judgments. This is obviously based on the Supreme Court's own decision in K.S. Subramanian's case where it was held that it was the duty of the High Court to follow opinions expressed by larger Benches of the Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by the smaller Benches and that that is the practice followed by the Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court further observed that that practice had now crystallised into a Rule of law declared by the Supreme Court. In any case, we are inclined to the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. dealt with a different situation altogether and did not dissent from its earlier decisions referred to and therefore has to be read as confined to its own facts and, therefore, no contradiction can be read or inferred between this decision and the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. It is also very pertinent to note from the decision that the Supreme Court found that in the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal, it never mentioned that "there was any material on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eks to bring in new items which had nothing to do with the subject matter of an appeal as originally filed, it will be as if the appeal in this regard has been filed belatedly and the Tribunal can entertain that only after considering whether there are grounds to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. The High Court thereafter observed that where permission is granted by the Tribunal, the scope of the original appeal will stand expanded or enlarged so as to cover the matters raised in the additional grounds. It also observed that the subject matter of the appeal is constituted by the original grounds of appeal and such additional grounds as may be raised by leave of the Tribunal. The Gujarat High Court followed this decision in Orient Prospecting Co.'s case. Thus, this decision is entirely in favour of the assessee in regard to the raisability of an additional ground for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal. No doubt in the case of National Thermal Power Corpn. the Special Bench had made the following observations in para 13 at page 110 : "Similar view has been indirectly taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Edward Keventer (Successors) (P.) Ltd." This observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein assist the assessee : "This is also the reason that new points are not allowed to be urged in any Appellate Court except in exceptional circumstances" (page 392). Therefore, this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also does not assist the Department. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in National Thermal Power Corpn.'s case does not seem right in construing this decision as if it laid down the rule that the Tribunal cannot permit an assessee to raise grounds not taken up before the AAC. This is again a decision confined to its own facts, not laying down a rule of universal or absolute application. 29. We now come to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Cellulose Products of India Ltd.'s case. In this case, it was held that the scope of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is restricted to the subject matter of appeal before AAC and a new ground based on different aspect of or approach to the same claim or relief could be raised before the Tribunal. It was held that it was not necessary that question should have been raised before AAC so long as it pertains to or falls within the contours of the subject matter of appeal before AAC but that if the matter is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oach." The High Court had referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd.'s case (which it applied) and to the decision in Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.'s case and Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd.'s case. The High Court had also agreed with the decision of the Delhi High Court in Anand Prasad's case. Even if for the sake of argument, it were to be taken that this decision of the Gujarat High Court helps the Department, it cannot come in the way of admission of additional grounds of appeal in another case on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court and other High Courts referred to above. The learned D.R. is not right in saying that since this is a Full Bench decision and it follows the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anand Prasad , it should be treated as binding on the Special Bench. We have already seen above that decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Anand Prasad cannot be said to assist the Department. 30. Lastly we come to the decision of the Special Bench in the case of National Thermal Power Corpn.'s case. In that case, the facts were that prior to the commencement of its business, the assessee-company ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down by the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court and the Punjab High Court in the above decisions. The second observation made by the Special Bench was that similar view had been indirectly taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Edward Keventer (Successors) (P.) Ltd. We have already seen that this observation is also not borne out by the decision of the Delhi High Court which is really in favour of the assessee. The third observation was that Delhi High Court decision was binding on the Bench and, therefore, following the same, new grounds taken by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal could not be entertained. Here also, even after following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the additional grounds raised before us in the present appeals will have to be admitted as we shall presently see. The fourth observation made by the Special Bench was that the benefit of the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court was not available to the Madras High Court and that moreover that is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Anand Prasad's case. From what has been stated above, this observation would also not hold. The fifth observation made was that while th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y mistake or otherwise) and not agitated either before the ITO or the AAC. (e) Any grounds which can be taken originally before the Tribunal can also be taken, with the permission of the Tribunal, as additional grounds before hearing the appeal. However, leave is not to be granted to the appellant on mere asking but particular reasons or justification has to be established, and if the Tribunal considers that the reasons given for not urging the points at an earlier stage are not germane or are unreasonable, the new grounds can be refused to be entertained. (f )The power of the Appellate Tribunal to admit additional grounds is not a matter of jurisdiction but of the exercise of its judicial discretion. It is a part of its inherent power to be exercised in the interests of substantial justice. Moti Ram's case, Chittoori Subanna's case, H.H. Maharaja Martand Singh Ju Deo's case and Manjidana's case. (g) Whenever additional grounds are permitted to be raised the party who may be affected thereby is to be given a sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground by the Tribunal, before resting its decision thereon [R. 11 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.] (h) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
