JUBILANT MOTORWORKS P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5879/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 February 2022AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appellate authority's power is co-terminus with the Assessing Officer and can admit additional grounds. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested admission of an additional ground before the CIT(A) for deduction on provision for obsolescence on demo cars. The CIT(A) dismissed this ground, stating it did not result in a grievance in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) has the power to admit and decide on an additional ground not raised before the Assessing Officer, and if so, whether the provision for obsolescence on demo cars is allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Ratan Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.02.2022Pronounced: 24.02.2022

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 7943/DEL/2018
ITA No. 5878/DEL/2018
ITA No. 5879/DEL/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

The above captioned three appeals by the assessee are preferred against three separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – 5, Delhi dated 04.10.2018, 07.06.2018 and 07.06.2018 pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.

2.

Since common grievance is involved in the captioned appeals, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.

Before the first appellate authority, the assessee requested for admission of additional ground. The additional ground raised before the ld. CIT(A) was:

“That on the facts and circumstances of the case deduction of Rs. 56,67,668/- with respect to provision for obsolescence on demo cars being written back and credit to the profit and loss account of the year under consideration be allowed.”

4.

The additional ground raised by the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) holding that the additional ground cannot be entertained as it does not result in any grievance in the assessment order.

5.

In our considered opinion, Section 250(5) of the I.T. Act and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd 187 ITR 688, the power of the appellate authority is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and there is no fetter on the power of the appellate authority to admit an additional ground and allow the claim even if the same was not raised before the Assessing Officer.

6.

In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] r.w.s 250(5) of the Act, we restore this quarrel to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue and all other related issues as per provisions of law after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In for Assessment Year 2011-12, Ground Nos. 1, 2, 2.1 and 3 were not pressed. The same are dismissed as not pressed.

8.

In Assessment Year 2013-14, Ground Nos. 3 was not pressed. The same is dismissed as not pressed.

9.

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the assessee in 5878/DEL/2018 and 5879/DEL/2018 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 24.02.2022 in the presence of both the rival representatives.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →