TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been wrongly accounted for in the books of the assessee for Assessment Year 1992-93 under reference. M/s. Prestige Enterprises has duly accounted for the accrual of commission for this amount of Rs. 1,91,611 in its books for Assessment Year 1991-92. When called upon to explain as to why debit notes pertaining to Assessment Year 1991-92 have been debited for Assessment Year 1992-93 in its books, the assessee explained that there were certain differences and disputes with the commission agent which were settled during the present assessment year and therefore the said commission of Rs. 1,91,611 has been debited in the books in this assessment year. The revenue authorities however rejected the explanation of the assessee in the absence of any evidence in this behalf. The addition of Rs. 1,91,611 has accordingly been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 1992-93. While upholding the additional CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting and since debit notes for the commission have been received by the assessee during the accounting year relevant for the Assessment Year 1991-92, there is absolutely no justification for claiming d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction for the commission for Assessment Year 1992-93 under appeal. Regarding the alternative contention of the assessee that deduction may in the alternative be allowed in Assessment Year 1991-92 during which debit notes were received, the ld. D.R. vehemently urged that no such finding or direction can be given by the Tribunal in relation to assessment year which is not before the Tribunal. The ld. D.R. argued that any such finding or direction would be outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as per the provisions of section 254(1). The ld. D.R. placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335. Further reliance is placed by the D.R. on the following decisions: 1. East India Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 16 (Mad.). 2. CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC). 3. CIT v. Hirdey Narain Yogendra Prakash [1971] 82 ITR 136 (All.). 4. K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag v. ITO [2000] 241 ITR 865 (Bom.). 5. Bakshish Singh v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 178 (Cal.). 6. In rejoinder the ld. counsel for the assessee, assailing the contentions of the ld. D.R. referred to the provisions of section 153(2A) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x that the Department is likely to collect from him whether in one year or the other." 7. We have given cut thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and also gone through the string of judicial authorities cited before us. There is no dispute in the proposition that the Tribunal by virtue of the powers vested upon it under the provisions of section 254(1) for disposal of an appeal may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The Tribunal would obviously pass the orders which have a bearing on the subject-matter of appeal and cannot possibly record finding or direction on incidental issues which are not connected with the subject-matter of appeal. The various provisions enacted by the Legislature in Chapter XIV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 viz. sections 153(2A) and 153(3) as well as the two Explanations appended below sub-section (3) of section 153, which lift the bar of time limitation for giving effect to the finding or direction given by the Tribunal, amply bring out the legislative intention for enlarged ambit of appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred under section 254(1). Obviously if section 254(1) is to be construed as prohibiting the Tribunal from givin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary for the disposal of the appeal. It may further be noted that insofar as finding or direction in respect of deduction of claim for any other assessment year is concerned, this would be subject to time limitation as contained in the scheme of the Income-tax Act. The time limitation has been lifted only with regard to finding or direction in respect of inclusion of income for any other assessment year as specifically provided in the various provisions under Chapter XIV of the Income-tax Act to which reference has already been made by us above. 9. The ld. D.R. has cited decision of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Bhagwan Das's case. The said decision has been rendered in the context of the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. While construing the expressions "finding" and "direction" in the second proviso to section 34(3), the Supreme Court held that a finding could only be that which was necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of an Assessment Year of a particular year. Even though the relevant provisions for lifting the bar of time limitation for giving effect to the finding or direction as contained in 1961 Act are worded in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
