TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asst. yr. 1972-73 it was clarified that the above sum of Rs. 21,983 represented payments made to the foreign collaborators M/s. Joseph Luces (Industries) Ltd. U.K. for reimbursement of charges incurred in filing the applications for registration of patents in India and that from the above explanation it was clear that it was an expenditure of capital nature. In the re-assessment made on 14th March, 1978, the ITO disallowed the sum of Rs. 21,983. On appeal, the CIT (A) observed that the ITO would have been justified in disallowing the amount if the patents belonged to the assessee and the expenses were for initial registration and not for renewal. He found that the assessee was not the owner of the patents but it merely used them. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT New Delhi(1) and he sought permission to raise this point in support of the order of the CIT (A), though not raised by the assessee before the CIT (A) or before the ITO which was because of the ruling of Supreme Court then prevailing in R.K. Malhotra ITO vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai(2) which has been disapproved by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 119 ITR 996. The ld. Deptl. representative objected to our permitting the request of the assessee. 4. We are not persuaded to hold that the CIT (A) has erred in accepting the assessee's claim that the expenditure in question was revenue in nature. Admittedly the assessee is not the owner of the patent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of law would not constitute information justifying the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b). The ld. deptl. representative objected to our permitting the assessee to raise this point about the invalidity of the reassessment before us since it was not raised before the lower authorities. As observed above, this point could not have been raised before the lower authorities as per the law then prevailing. The contention raised about the validity of the re-assessment is purely one of law and the facts already exist on the records both before the ITO and the AAC all along. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the assessee, who is a respondent in this appeal, should be permitted to raise this question even though it is raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
