Pure question of law may be raised as an additional ground when it goes to the root of assessment.

An additional ground raising a pure question of law, capable of going to the root of the assessment and requiring no fresh factual enquiry or inconsistent case, should ordinarily be considered on its merits. The Tribunal's discretion under rule 12 is judicial and must be exercised reasonably, with due application of mind to the nature and materiality of the point. On the facts noted, the Tribunal's brief refusal to permit the assessee to urge the ground was not a proper exercise of discretion, and the refusal was held unjustified in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to permit the assessee to urge an additional ground at the final hearing of the appeal under rule 12 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules.

Analysis: The additional ground raised a pure question of law and, if accepted, would have gone to the root of the assessment. A ground of this nature, especially when it does not require the introduction of a new and inconsistent case or fresh factual enquiry, ought to be considered on its merits. The discretion under rule 12 is judicial in character and must be exercised reasonably, keeping in view that appellate procedure is not confined rigidly to the grounds originally set out where the issue is purely legal and material to the validity of the assessment. The Tribunal's brief refusal, without a proper application of mind to the nature and importance of the point, was not a proper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The refusal to admit the additional ground was not justified in law, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---