Fresh appellate grounds require a satisfactory explanation; inconsistent claims may be refused where no adequate reason is shown.

Under section 63(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the appellate power is wide, but a person seeking to raise fresh grounds for the first time on appeal must give a proper and satisfactory explanation for not advancing them earlier. If the new contention is inconsistent with the stand taken before the assessing authority and no adequate reason is shown for the omission, the appellate authority may judicially refuse leave to raise it. On the stated facts, the accountable person had proceeded on the basis that the properties belonged to the deceased individually and later sought to claim some were ancestral and linked to a Hindu undivided family, without explaining the change. The refusal to admit the fresh grounds was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Board of Direct Taxes properly exercised its discretion in refusing to admit fresh grounds raised for the first time at the appellate stage under section 63(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: The appellate power under section 63(3) is wide, but an assessee seeking to raise new grounds at the appellate stage must show a proper and satisfactory explanation for not raising them earlier. Where the new contention introduces a case inconsistent with the stand taken before the assessing authority, and no adequate reason is shown for the omission, the appellate authority may judicially refuse leave to raise such grounds. On the facts, the accountable person had returned the estate on the basis that the properties belonged to the deceased individually and had relied on the will, yet sought at the appellate stage to urge a contrary case regarding some properties as ancestral and connected with a Hindu undivided family. No sufficient explanation was given for not raising the point earlier.

Conclusion: The refusal to admit the fresh grounds was a proper exercise of discretion and is upheld in favour of the Revenue.

---