TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was moved by the assessee praying therein for relief under section 80J on the ground that the value of the asset has been taken at a lesser figure. It was found by the Income-tax Officer that the value of the asset has been taken at a figure of Rs. 5,33,215 instead of Rs. 5,45,892 and, accordingly, the mistake was rectified. The Income-tax Officer further found that, while computing the relief under section 80J, the pre-paid expenses and expenditure not written off was wrongly taken as an asset. A notice under section 154 was issued for withdrawing the excess deduction allowed under section 80J and, after considering the reply of the assessee, the computation was revised. An appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of that ground from the form of appeal was not wilful or unreasonable. It has been held in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) that, if the claim for exemption was not made before the Income-tax Officer and there is no material on record to support such claim, then the same cannot be raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The above judgment was considered in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) and it was held that the observations in the case of Gurjargravures' case [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) do not make out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at the stage when the return was filed or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion would also differ in a case where the matter pertains to an appeal against an assessment order and where the matter is only with regard to an appeal against the order passed in rectification proceedings. If an order, as in the present case, has been passed in proceedings under section 154, then the jurisdiction to decide the appeal would be limited only with regard to the questions decided by the Income-tax Officer by rectifying or refusing to rectify the assessment order and any question which has not been decided or refused to be decided by an express order would be deemed to have become final. An assessee is not entitled to reopen those issues which have become final and against which no appeal has been preferred. The jurisdiction un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and directing him to entertain the additional ground raised by the assessee, The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has also not decided the issue in terms of the provisions of section 250(5) and unless a finding is recorded that the omission to take the ground in the form of appeal was not wilful or unreasonable, no directions could have been given to entertain the said additional ground. The matter is, accordingly, sent back to the Tribunal to record a finding in terms of section 250(5) of the Act or to direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to act in terms of the provisions of the said section and observations made above and then to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
