9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the computation of its business income the assessee claimed loss of Rs. 4,75,488 and various other deductions. The loss was disallowed as fictitious and added back. So also some of the allowances claimed were disallowed and added back. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer disallowing the loss and some of the allowances claimed the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer and upheld the disallowance of the loss and some other disallowances added back. Against that order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In the memo of appeal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee itself had filed the return on the footing that the said sum was a revenue receipt. The Tribunal found that the case of the assessee had to be decided on the facts on record and it was not possible to go into the additional grounds of objection unless fresh investigation of facts was made at the stage of the second appeal before the Tribunal. On that footing the Tribunal rejected the application of the assessee to urge additional grounds of appeal. The question above referred to arises from this order of the Tribunal. Mr. Dwarkadas on behalf of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal misdirected itself in not permitting the assessee to raise the additional grounds of appeal, especially when no other material was required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord on the basis of which the additional grounds were sought to be urged. In the absence of any material before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or in the absence of any plea before them in that behalf it was impossible for the Tribunal to hold that either of the two authorities erred in taking the view which they took. Reliance was placed by Mr. Dwarkadas upon the decision of this court in the case of J. S. Parkar v. V. B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616 (Bom). In this case one of the questions that was argued before the Bench was whether a plea of set-off could be decided on the facts existing on record. The Division Bench has pointed out that such a plea did not require any fresh facts. The case before us is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
