9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal is justified in not permitting the Revenue to put forward a plea that the amount to be excluded is Rs. 6,99,841 which is the proposed dividend for the year 1972, instead of Rs. 4,86,000 mentioned in the assessment order ? (ii) Whether the sum of Rs. 6,99,841 should not have been excluded from the capital ?" The assessee is a company and in computing the liability of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer deducted three amounts. We are not actually concerned in the present reference with reference to the correctness of the view of granting deduction of the three amounts made by the Surtax Officer in the computation of the capital under the provisions of the Surtax Act. However, it is neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee opposed the admission of the fresh ground urged on behalf of the Department. It was contended by the representative on behalf of the Department that there was some confusion in the matter and the case of the Department should be considered with reference to the amount of Rs. 6,99,841 instead of a sum of Rs. 4,86,000 deducted by the Surtax Officer in the order of assessment passed by him. The Appellate Tribunal found the new ground raised on behalf of the Department was not the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal held that it cannot entertain the new ground which was not the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority. The Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the appeal preferred by the assessee. However, when the matter came before the Appellate Tribunal relating to the proper computation of the capital for the assessment year 1974-75 the mistake committed by the Surtax Officer was noticed and it was urged on behalf of the Department that the Surtax Officer meant to deduct only a sum of Rs. 6,99,841 though the order mentioned the figure as Rs. 4,86,000. The Tribunal, apparently on the law then existing, refused to entertain on the ground that the matter was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The view of the Appellate Tribunal that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a ground which was not the subject-ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj) [FB]. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But, where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee." Therefore, the view of the Appellate Tribunal that it has no power to entertain the new ground urged before it by the Revenue, which was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous in the light of the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
