TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income from other sources’. Therefore, the provisions of section 14A would not come into play. The AO has clearly erred in observing that the intention of the assessee is to make the investment to earn the dividend income which is exempt from tax. In view of the same, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance of ₹ 17,52,000 made by the AO towards the proportionate interest debited to the P&L A/c. Addition on difference in the payment of insurance and the claim - Held that:- It is not clear as to how the AO has arrived at the figure of ₹ 1,62,300 as being the difference between the amount claimed and the amount paid by the assessee. As seen from Page No.9 of the Paper Book filed before us, the total of the insurance paid by the assessee is ₹ 28,88,890 whereas the AO mentioned that the claim of the assessee is ₹ 30,76,827. We find that even the CIT (A) has not verified the assessee’s claim and has mentioned payment as ₹ 27,26,590 without any basis. In view of the same, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and if there is no difference in the payment of insurance and the claim, then no addition shall be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted. However, on pointing out that the actual grievance of the assessee is not reflected in the grounds of appeal as raised above, the assessee, vide letter dated 4.5.2017, has filed another application raising the following additional ground of appeal: Additional Grounds of Appeal 9. The AO erred in disallowing the Gratuity of ₹ 21,75,031/- u/s 43B without appreciating the fact that this is an opening balance. 10. The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the provisions of section 43B cannot be invoked for disallowance of gratuity and which is an opening balance. 11. The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has maintained its books of account as per Accounting Standards issued by ICAI and method of accounting followed by assessee could not be discarded and expenditure entitled cannot be denied. 12. The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that gratuity is scientifically derived and is allowable irrespective of paid or payable . 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the above appeal are that the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of running of hotels, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2006-07 on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating that it is not a legal ground of appeal and also needs factual verification. She also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 283 (SC) in support of her contention. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that, no doubt, the grounds 6 and 7 which are raised as additional grounds of appeal are not on legal principles, but that there is no claim during the relevant F.Y. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (Supra) has held that: 4. The Tribunal has framed as many as five questions while making a reference to us. Since the Tribunal has not examined the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the merits, we do not propose to answer the questions relating to the merits of those contentions. We reframe the question which arises for our consideration in order to bring out the point which requires determination more clearly. It is as follows: Where on the facts found by the authorities below a question of law arises (though not raised before the authorities) which bears on the tax liability of the assessee, whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal [vide, e.g., C.I.T, v. Anand Prasad (Delhi), C.I.T. v. KaramchandPremchand P. Ltd. and C.I.T. v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. . Undoubtedly, 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. 8. The reframed question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
