2001 (4) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal decision allowing new expense claims under Income-tax Act

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gokuldass And Co

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gokuldass And Co - [2002] 253 ITR 633, 172 CTR 394, 122 TAXMANN 849 Issues:- Interpretation of whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to entertain an additional ground relating to claim under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of salary and postage expenses.Detailed Analysis:The case involved a dispute where the assessee made a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenses incurred for the promotion of sales outside India. The claim included travelling expenses, salary, and postage costs. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) declined to permit the assessee to raise the claim for salary and postage expenses under section 35B, citing a previous Supreme Court decision. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee had made a claim for weighted deduction during the assessment proceedings and had material to support the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate authority had discretion to entertain additional claims and referred to the material submitted by the assessee to support their claim under section 35B.The High Court analyzed the contentions made by the Revenue and reviewed the Supreme Court decision cited by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had not set a strict rule against permitting the raising of new claims before the appellate authority. The Court highlighted the provisions of section 250, which allow the appellate authority to consider new grounds unless they are wilful or unreasonable. The Court emphasized that the first appellate authority has plenary powers to decide on new claims, especially if there is material to support such claims, even if not raised before the Assessing Officer.The High Court referred to previous Supreme Court judgments, including CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized the broad powers of the appellate authority to modify assessment orders based on new grounds raised by the assessee. The Court also noted a conflict between the decision in Additional CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. and the earlier larger Bench decision in Kanpur Coal Syndicate's case, favoring the latter's view.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal had not erred in allowing the appeal and considering the case law in its correct perspective. The Court answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no orders as to costs.