TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962-63 in the assessments for the years after April 1, 1962 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not allowing the assessee leave to raise in its own appeals additional grounds and in the departmental appeals cross-objections regarding the deductibility of the sums transferred to contingency reserve and tariff and dividend control reserve ?" The assessee is a company engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity. The proceedings relate to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1972-73 (both inclusive). Counsel are agreed that the first question is covered by the decision of our court in two cases of the same assessee, namely, CIT v. Bassein Electric Supply Co. Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 334, that such amounts represented allowable deductions on revenue account. The new claim or additional ground was sought to be raised on the basis of the said decision. Having heard Shri Dalvi, learned counsel for the assessee, and Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, at some length, we are of the view that there is conflict between the views taken by our court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 141 ITR 326 and in CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patel [1990] 186 ITR 29. The question involved in 186 ITR 29 was about the Tribunal's power under the Estate Duty Act to entertain an additional ground raised before it for the first time. The court noted the argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw, it was held (p. 333): ". . . the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 254 in an appeal before it is restricted only to passing of orders on the subject matter of the appeal. However, within the four corners of that jurisdiction, the Tribunal has been clothed with almost the same powers as those of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner except that of enhancement." As regards the subject-matter of the appeal, it was observed (p. 334): "The assessee once having accepted the said finding of the Incometax Officer by not having appealed against the same to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee's grievance, if any, against the said finding of the Income-tax Officer cannot form the subject-matter of an appeal before the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he may set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power is conterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Incometax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do. "' It is not possible to accept that the Supreme Court has impliedly approved the view taken by this court in CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patil [1990] 186 ITR 29. Other decisions cited pertained to the jurisdiction and power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has now laid down the law clearly and categorically about the Appellate Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
