1987 (11) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the ITO as the order of the ITO was merged with the order of CIT(A). (2). The learned CIT failed to appreciate that, the learned CIT(A) vide his order dt. 8th Oct. 1987, decided the appeal of the appellant therefore the CIT was not justified in revising the order passed by the ITO." 3. The learned Departmental Representative Shri A.A. Makjija objected to the raising of the additional grounds. According to him the assessee did not raise these before the Commissioner and, therefore, the Tribunal cannot allow these ground to be taken by as it will amount to substitution of the grounds which did not form part of the order of the Commissioner as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tribunal was bound to permit the additional grounds as raised. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC), for the proposition that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to allow any new question to be raised for the first time two in appeal before it and should allow such a question to be raised if it is a question which can be decided on the facts already on record. The learned counsel also cited the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. India Auto Stores (1980) 14 CTR (Mad) 313 : (1981) 129 ITR 554 (Mad); (ii) J.S. Patkar vs. B.B. Palekar & Ors. (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom); (iii) CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC). Having regard to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted to be taken at the hearing before the Tribunal. 5. If the case of the assessee is considered in the light of the above decisions, the additional grounds raised can be decided on the evidences already placed on record. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1979-80 was completed by the ITO on 24th Aug., 1982 determining the loss of Rs. 31,99,923. Against this order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) decided the appeal on 8th Oct., 1982. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner exercising his power under s. 263 of the IT Act issued notice for revision and passed the order dt. 18th Aug., 1984 which is impugned before us. The assessee in this case raised an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecision otherwise and accept it as a new precedent, generally on the scope of the appellate jurisdiction in taking enactment, would be read into the decision, by implication, an intention on the part of the Supreme Court to overrule the three decisions which have stood without a word of contradiction in the later decisions of that Court. As we pointed out that CIT vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC), Hukumchand Mills Ltd.'s case (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) and Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd's case (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) have not been noticed in the latest case cited for the Department, we do not think that the Supreme Court could have intended to throw overboard, by implication, all these well-considered judgments." Respectfully following the....