TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court rules AAC exceeded jurisdiction by directing ITO to include new income source in assessment</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Chaganlal Kailas And Co.</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Chaganlal Kailas And Co. - [1984] 148 ITR 7, 38 CTR 336, 19 TAXMANN 536 Issues involved: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) to enhance assessment based on a source of income not considered by the assessing authority.Summary:The case involved a registered firm engaged in commission business in fruits at Madras and New Delhi. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed a portion of the entertainment expenses claimed by the firm and added back the excess amount to the income. Additionally, the ITO noticed that the firm had collected a sum under the head 'Charity' which was not brought to tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) directed the ITO to enhance the income by including the charity amount, despite objections from the firm regarding jurisdiction and inclusion of the new source of income.The firm appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the firm on both the disallowance of expenses and the enhancement issue. The Tribunal held that the AAC cannot bring in a new source of income not considered by the ITO during assessment. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the AAC's power is co-extensive with that of the ITO.The High Court, following Supreme Court precedents, emphasized that the AAC's power to enhance assessment is limited to items of income considered by the ITO. The Court cited previous cases to support this view, highlighting that the AAC cannot introduce new sources of income not mentioned in the return or considered by the ITO. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that charity collections should be treated as trading receipts, as established in previous rulings.Based on the legal principles outlined by the Supreme Court, the High Court answered the reference questions in favor of the firm, affirming that the AAC exceeded jurisdiction in enhancing the assessment with the charity amount. The firm was awarded costs, including counsel's fee.
TaxTMI 