TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vinay Kuthiala for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SANJAY KAROL J.— Himachal Gramin Bank, a banking institution, with respect to the assessment year 1990-91 filed a return showing loss of Rs. 1,51,03,247. Vide order dated November 19, 1990, the assessee was informed under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), that the following deduction claimed in the return were disallowed and thus the total loss of the assessee was reduced to Rs. 1,36,42,304 : "Travelling expenses 60 Provision for gratuity 9,61,482 Provision for bonus 4,62,000 Previous year expenses 6,053 Entertainment under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shimla, which was allowed in terms of the order dated February 24, 1992, with the following observation "4 I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and find merit in them. As regards the Assessing Officer's action in rejecting the application under section 154 the appellant has not laid much stress thereon. As regards the Board's Circular No. 319, January 11, 1982 [1982] 134 ITR (St.) 165, I feel that the appellant is liable for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(1). The has held as under in the said circular- 'For the purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or any other enactment for the time being in force relating to only tax on income, profits or gains, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax (Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining a new claim not raised earlier probably even in the return of income or thereafter." (emphasis supplied) 6. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was set aside. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee's present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether or not the action of the respondent is justified to impose the additional tax on the amount of adjustment made under section 143(1) (a) by disallowing the certain expenses both statutory and not statutory in view of the Circular No. 669, dated October 25, 1993 [1993] 204 ITR (St.) 105, and the judgment of the hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, learned counsel for the parties. 9. During the course of hearing, Mr. Khanna has focused his submissions purely on the substantial question of law No. 3. He has persuaded us to agree that if the same is decided in his favour, then the matter can be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for consideration of the other issues, questions and respective contentions raised by the parties before us. We accordingly proceed to decide. 10. Admittedly, the plea that the assessee was liable for benefits under section 80P of the Act was raised for the first time in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 11. It is not in dispute that the assessee would be entitled to the statutory benefits under section 80P, subject, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore it subject to the restrictions or limitations f 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. Thus, the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income-tax Officer. There is, therefore, no justification in curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground suo motu or raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of the assessment pas by the Income-tax Officer if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it under the provisions of the Act. 17. In our view, keeping in view the provisions of the Act and also the ratio of law laid down by the apex court, it cannot be said that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a new ground raised before it. Further, the provisions of section 255 of the Act clearly empowers the Commissioner to entertain any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal. The question of law is answered accordingly. 18. Perusal of the order passed by the authorities below would, however, show that none of the authorities have gone into the question as to whether the assessee is to be given benefit of various circulars including Circular No. 689, dated August ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
