Tribunal jurisdiction over additional grounds on same relief claim upheld where issue was already in dispute

A Gujarat High Court note states that where an issue is already covered by binding precedent, the referred question must be answered consistently with that precedent, here in favour of the assessee. It also explains that the Tribunal can permit an additional ground on a further aspect of computation of relief already raised before the lower income-tax authorities, because it is not a wholly new controversy. On that basis, the Tribunal may restore the matter for fresh adjudication. The stated principle is that an additional ground on the same relief claim falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction when the underlying issue was previously in dispute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first referred question, already covered by binding High Court precedent, had to be answered in favour of the assessee. (ii) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to permit the assessee to raise an additional ground relating to computation of relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and to restore the matter for fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the first referred question, already covered by binding High Court precedent, had to be answered in favour of the assessee.

Analysis: The question was held to be directly governed by the earlier decision of the same High Court on the identical issue.

Conclusion: The first question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to permit the assessee to raise an additional ground relating to computation of relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and to restore the matter for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The claim for relief under section 84 had already been raised before the assessing authority and the appellate authority. The point taken before the Tribunal was not a wholly new issue but only another aspect of computation on a matter already in controversy. On that footing, the Tribunal was competent to allow the additional ground and to send the matter back for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to permit the additional ground and to restore the appeal for fresh adjudication; the second question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were decided in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue was directed to bear the costs of the reference.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal may allow an additional ground concerning a different aspect of the same claim for computation, where the underlying relief issue was already raised before the lower income-tax authorities.

---