1996 (12) TMI 7 - SC - Income Tax

Powers/jurisdiction of Tribunal - held that tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee and have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Court was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has jurisdiction to entertain and examine a question of law that arises from the facts found by the authorities below but which was not raised before those authorities, when such a question bears on the tax liability of the assessee. Specifically, the issue arose in the context of the assessee seeking to raise additional grounds challenging the inclusion of interest income earned on short-term bank deposits during the construction period of a thermal power plant, which was initially admitted as taxable income but later contended to be non-taxable and instead deductible from the capital cost of the plant.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain new grounds of appeal not raised earlier

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, which empowers the Appellate Tribunal to pass orders it thinks fit after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. The Court referred to earlier decisions, including Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.I.T., which held that appellate authorities possess all powers of the original authority subject to statutory restrictions, and that new grounds may be entertained if bona fide and justified by good reasons. The Court also cited precedents that rejected a narrow interpretation of the Tribunal's powers, such as C.I.T. v. Anand Prasad and others, which recognized the Tribunal's discretion to allow new grounds where necessary for correct tax assessment.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the purpose of assessment proceedings is to correctly determine the tax liability in accordance with law. If a non-taxable item has been taxed or a permissible deduction denied, the assessee should not be barred from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, provided the relevant facts are on record. The Court rejected the view that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined only to issues arising from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order. Instead, the Tribunal has plenary powers to consider questions of law arising from the facts found by the authorities below, even if not previously raised.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee had initially admitted the interest income of Rs. 22,84,994 as taxable. Subsequently, based on Special Benches' decisions in other cases, the assessee contended that such interest income earned during the pre-operational period should reduce the capital cost and not be taxed as income. The Tribunal declined to entertain these additional grounds as they were not raised earlier.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that since the facts relating to the interest income were on record, the question of whether it was taxable or not was a question of law arising from those facts. Therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the new grounds on their merits. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the additional grounds.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged that the Tribunal has discretion to allow or disallow new grounds. However, it held that such discretion should be exercised reasonably, especially when the question of law is crucial for correct tax assessment and the grounds are raised bona fide. The Court rejected the narrow view that the Tribunal must confine itself strictly to the issues framed in the Commissioner's order.

Conclusions: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide questions of law arising from the facts on record, even if such questions were not raised before the lower authorities. The Tribunal should consider bona fide additional grounds if they are necessary for the correct determination of tax liability.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item."

"We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier."

"An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter."

"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 a 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."

Final determination: The Court held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law arising from the facts found by the authorities below, even if not raised earlier, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of the additional grounds on their merits.