JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1935/1981Supreme Court1990 INSC 26704 September 1990Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K.N. SINGH, T.K. THOMMEN, KULDIP SINGH A JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.9 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jute Corporation of India Ltd., appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) for assessment year 1974-75. During the appeal, the assessee raised an additional ground, claiming a deduction of Rs. 11,54,995 towards its liability for Purchase Tax. The AAC, after hearing the Income Tax Officer (ITO), allowed this claim. The Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which set aside the AAC's order, holding that the AAC lacked jurisdiction to entertain additional grounds not raised before the ITO. The assessee's subsequent applications for a reference to the High Court were refused by the ITAT and the High Court. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the power to entertain additional grounds of appeal not raised before the Income Tax Officer, provided the AAC is satisfied that the ground is bona fide and could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Court reasoned that the AAC's powers are co-terminus with the ITO's, and in the absence of statutory restrictions, the appellate authority possesses all the powers of the original authority. The Court distinguished the Gurjargravures case, stating it was based on specific facts where no material supported the claim. The Court found the ITAT's view unsustainable and set aside its order. The matter was remitted to the ITAT to consider the merit of the deduction allowed by the AAC, with the option for the ITAT to remand it further to the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals for rehearing if deemed necessary. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) has the jurisdiction to entertain additional grounds of appeal not raised before the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and grant relief thereon, under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the AAC's powers are co-terminus with the ITO's, and therefore, the AAC can modify an assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO, as the Act does not impose restrictions. They relied on cases like Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate and Rai Kumar Srimal v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the AAC exceeded his powers by entertaining an additional ground not raised before the ITO. They relied on cases like Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 251,Section 256(1),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

'· A JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. I'. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. SEPTEMBER, 4 1990 i3 [K.N. SINGH, T.K. THOMMEN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 251-Appeal before Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Additional grounds raised by assessee which were not raised before the Income Tax Officer-Whether could be entertained. c In respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, the appellant-assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. During the hearing of the appeal, the assessee raised an additional ground as regards its liability to Purchase Tax and claimed a deduction of Rs.U,54,995. After giving an opportunity of hearing to D the Income Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the said claim.

The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appel- late Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commis- sioner had no juri iction to entertain any additional ground not E raised before the Income Tax Officer and set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

The assessee's application for making reference to the High Court was refused hy the Trib

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,120 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →