Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (8) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to raise the ground without written communication are issues not possible perhaps not necessary for us to finally comment upon. We are unable to find conclusive evidence to hold that the Tribunal entertained a ground which was not raised. The second important conclusion that we have reached is that the Tribunal did act somewhat informally in the process. We are convinced that the assessee was not given an opportunity to oppose this additional ground being raised by the Revenue in these two years and more importantly, oppose the ground on merits. The impugned judgement of the Tribunal dated 05.12.2008 is set aside to the limited extent where the Tribunal has allowed the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000- 01 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the Tribunal. We are concerned with tax appeals for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000-2001. In all these years, the issue before the Assessing Officer and also before the CIT(Appeals) was of alleged suppression of the net profit. The Assessing Officer had made certain additions purportedly on the basis of seized material. CIT (Appeals) had deleted the additions for all assessment years. In the appeals that the Revenue filed before the Tribunal, however, this ground was taken in all years except in the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000-01. According to the Revenue, this was a pure inadvertent error. 4. Group of appeals was fixed for hearing before the Tribunal at Baroda on 22.09.2008. Case of the Revenue is that during the course of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ho presided in the hearing and disposal of the appeals of the Revenue were either transferred or retired. New members therefore, obviously did not have any personal information about this hotly disputed factual aspect. The members therefore offered to restore all tax appeals on this ground before the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal. Counsel for the assessee understandably refused such offer. The Tribunal therefore rejected Miscellaneous Application giving rise to the present petition. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Soparkar vehemently contended that the Tribunal had not given permission to raise the additional ground. No additional ground could have been even otherwise raised within the short time available to the Revenue's represent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the subordinate Courts and Tribunals are true and faithful to the actual facts and events. Disturbing such official recordings must necessarily be rare in exceptional circumstances and when clinching evidence suggests to the contrary. Having been taken through the documents and records contemporaneous with the evidence which unfolded later, it does appear that the additional ground for the said two assessment years was allowed to be raised by the Tribunal once the hearing was over. In fact, the Tribunal in its order dated 05.12.2008 while disposing of the Tax Appeals of the Revenue in the context of this additional ground for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000-01 had observed as under: As no new facts are to be investigated, ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unal's unilateral opinion and, in a given case, may even be proved to be erroneous, if the assessee is allowed full participation at every crucial stage. 11.The ultimate conclusion that we would therefore reach is that this is not a case where the Tribunal has decided a ground which was never raised by the Revenue, a suggestion which is otherwise made by the petitioner but we are unable to accept. The fact that the Revenue moved with great speed need not be conclusive. How long that the arguments last, merely because it was the group of appeals which was listed at serial Nos. 1 to 18 arguments were heard ahead of other appeals, whether the Commissioner's decision was conveyed to the Revenue's representative who was present be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates