1988 (12) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CBDT. He also conceded that on similar facts in earlier years this Tribunal has held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under s. 80-O. Therefore, in our view the orders of the authorities below declining to grant relief under s. 80-O are correct and are hereby upheld. 2. In the Memo of appeal the assessee had added a prayer that the following additional grounds may be admitted for hearing: (1) That the appellant has been erroneously denied the deduction on account of Investment Allowance on the new Plant & Machinery installed during the year valued at Rs. 6,60,658 inspite of the fact that complete details in respect of the additions to the Plant & Machinery were filed during the course of assessment proceedings." (2) That t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee's claim that amounts earned by it on the sale of import entitlements and the amounts received by it as cash assistance were not taxable receipts, they were neither raised before the ITO at any stage of the proceedings nor before the CIT(A). 5. Thus the aforesaid three additional grounds do not arise out of the order of the CIT(A) against which the present appeal has been preferred and this is conceded by a statement to this effect in the same memo of appeal itself. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee however contended that all these are pure questions of law, the facts on which these claims can be allowed being already on record. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon CIT vs. Delhi Sanitary Stores (1981) 127 ITR 822 (R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner, a claim which was not made before the ITO and about which there was no material on record to support such claim could not be raised. The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon an order of the a Special Bench of Tribunal in NTPC vs. IAC (1985) 12 ITD 99 (Del) (SB) in which it was held that a party cannot raise an additional ground in respect of issues which have not been raised before or considered by the first appellate authority. 8. We are of the view that the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in (1978) CTR (SC) 1 : (1978) 111 ITR 2 (SC) has to be followed according to which if there is no material on record to support a claim, the same cannot be allowed to be raised before the appellate authority. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us year to be utilised for certain purposes. There is nothing to show that the machinery installed by the assessee was new or that it was used in the business of construction, manufacture of production of any article or thing or that the conditions prescribed in s. 32A(4) had been fulfilled by the assessee. There was, therefore, no material on the basis of which the claim for investment allowance could be entertained and therefore, this plea cannot be allowed to be raised at this belated stage. 10. As regards the profit earned by the assessee on the sale of import entitlements, the learned counsel for the assessee admitted that this sum was duly shown by the assessee in its Profit & Loss account as income and the only material that he clai....