Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 128 - KERALA HIGH COURTAppellate Authority power u/s 251 to add to or enhance the assessee’s declared income from a source never considered by the AO - Reopening of assessment - undisclosed income - Burden proof on the source of income - assessee pleads in defence that he sold a few bars of gold - enhancing the assessment by taking the assessee’s status as ‘resident’ and by bringing to tax the income earned by him outside India - Held that:- In an appeal against an order of assessment, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment. In an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty. The explanation to the provision further emphasizes that the Appellate Authority may consider and decide any matter arising out of proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, though such matter was not raised before him by the appellant. Full Bench in CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co., (2001 (9) TMI 1130 - Delhi High Court) has held that the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the assessing officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under section 147, or section 148, or even section 263 of the Act if requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is inconceivable, according to Sardari Lal, that in the presence of such specific provisions, a similar power is available to the first appellate authority. Eventually, Sardari Lal upheld the decision in Union Tyres[1999 (9) TMI 81 - DELHI High Court]. Undeniably, the precedential position on the powers of the first appellate authority under section 251 undulates. There are seeming contradictions. But, as held by Union Tyres [1999 (9) TMI 81 - DELHI High Court ] and as affirmed on reference by Sardari Lal, there is a consistent judicial assertion that the powers under section 251 are, indeed, very wide; but, wide as they are, they do not go to the extent of displacing powers under, say, sections 147, 148, and 263 of the Act. Therefore, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Sardari Lal. As a corollary, we hold that the Tribunal’s deleting the enhancement of ₹ 22,15,116/- and canceling the order of the CIT (A) on that issue call for no interference. We thus answer the questions of law partly in the Revenue’s favour
|