1992 (4) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds and cross-objections regarding the deductibility of sums transferred to contingency reserve and tariff and dividend control reserve.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the additional ground raised for allowing the applicants Rs. 42,443 as revenue loss u/s 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the destruction of the sugar godown because of a cyclone.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deductibility of Sums Transferred to Reserves

Income-tax Reference No. 481 of 1976 involved the assessee-company, governed by the Electric Supply Act of 1948, which did not claim certain amounts as deductions in its initial assessments for the years 1962-63 to 1971-72. Following the High Court's decision in Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 334, which allowed such deductions, the assessee sought to raise this new claim before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to grant leave to raise additional grounds. The Division Bench noted a conflict in views from Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 141 ITR 326 and CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patel [1990] 186 ITR 29, and referred the matter to a larger Bench. The larger Bench held that the Appellate Tribunal has wide powers to permit additional grounds to be raised, provided they relate to the subject matter of the proceedings and not new sources of income.

Issue 2: Revenue Loss Due to Cyclone

Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1977 involved the assessee's claim for Rs. 42,443 as revenue loss u/s 32(1)(iii) due to the destruction of a sugar godown by a cyclone. Initially, the expenditure for constructing the shed was claimed as revenue expenditure, but the Tribunal later held it as a capital asset. Consequently, the assessee sought to claim the loss due to its destruction, but the Tribunal did not permit raising this additional ground. The Division Bench referred the question to a larger Bench due to conflicting authorities. The larger Bench reiterated that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to permit additional grounds if they pertain to the subject matter of the proceedings.

Legal Principles and Precedents:

The judgment extensively discussed the appellate powers u/s 251 and 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that appellate authorities aim to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee. The Tribunal's powers are not confined to points raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but extend to the entire proceedings. This view is supported by various precedents, including Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710, which affirmed the Tribunal's wide jurisdiction to entertain new grounds.

Conclusion:

Both questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, confirming that the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to permit additional grounds related to the subject matter of the tax proceedings. The proceedings were directed to be placed before the Tribunal for decision in light of this judgment.