M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 2(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2014 M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. .. Appellant v/s. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, 2(2)

.. Respondent Mr. Madhur Agarwal i/b Atul Jasani for the appellant Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal a/w Ms. Namita Shirke a/w Ms. Brenda D'Souza for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J. RESERVED ON : 5th APRIL, 2017. PRONOUNCED ON : 18th APRIL, 2017 JUDGEMENT :­ (Per M.S. Sanklecha, J) 1] This   appeal   under   Section   260A   of   the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenges the order dated 20th  February, 2014 of   the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).   The assessment year involved is A.Y. 2008­09. 2] The appellant assessee has urged only the Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 28 CNR No : HCBM020136302014 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 following question of law for our consideration :­ Whether   on   the   facts   and   in   the circumstances   of   the   case   and   in   law,   the Tribunal   erred   in   refusing   to   admit   the additional ground of the appellant of claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on   the   income   earned   by   the   Appellant   on operation   and   maintenance   of   the   Jetty   / Port? 3] On 29th March, 2017, at the request of the parties, the Court while adjourning the appeal had recorded the fact that the appeal itself could be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 4] We   admit   the   above   question   at   paragraph no.2 above as giving rise to substantial question of law.  At the instance and request of the parties, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal. 5] The   appellant   assessee   is   engaged   in   the business of manufacture, sale and trading of cement and   cement   related   products.   For   the   subject Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 assessment   year,   the   appellant   assessee   had   filed its   Return   of   Income   declaring   a   total   income   of Rs.1,287   crores.     On   20th  February,   2011,   the Assessing   Officer   passed   an   order   under   Section 143(3) of the Act determining the appellant's income at Rs.1,490 crores. 6] Being   aggrieved,   the   appellant   assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].    The grounds urged by the appellant – assessee before the CIT(A) were as under :­ (a) The   dis­allowance   of   deduction   under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of the Rail System   established   at   Chhatisgarh,   Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal; (b) Sales   Tax   exemption   benefit   received by   the   appellant   assessee   was   held   to   be   a revenue   receipt   when   according   to   the respondent Revenue it was a capital receipt; (c) The dis­allowance under Section 14A of the Act at a sum higher than that offered for dis­allowance was not justified in law; and (d) The   dis­allowance   in   respect   of   the provisions   for   expenses   made   for   employees Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 stock option plan (ESOP). 7] The   CIT   (A)   by   an   order   dated   21st December,   2011   partly   allowed   the   appellant assessee's appeal.   The appeal was allowed on all issues   except   on   issue   of   disallowance   of expenditure   under   Section   14A   of   the   Act   and   on provision for expenses made for ESOP. 8] Being   aggrieved,   the   appellant   assessee carried the issue in further appeal to the Tribunal. The appeal as filed urged issues only in relation to dis­allowance under Section 14A of the Act and dis­ allowance of provision for expenses made for ESOP. However, before the Tribunal, the appellant assessee sought to raise an additional ground at the time of the hearing of the appeal.  The additional ground of appeal   which   gives   rise   to   this   appeal,   reads   as under :­ “(i)   The appellant has developed, operated and   maintained   jetty   /   port   situated   at Kovaya   in   the   State   of   Gujarat   under agreement   with   the   Gujarat   Maritime   board. Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 The Jetty / Port commenced its operations in Financial Year 1997­98 i.e. A.Y. 1998­99. (ii) Under   proviso   to   Sec.   80IA(2),   the deduction   can   be   claimed   for   any   ten consecutive   years   out   of   twenty   years beginning   from   the   year   in   which   the enterprise   develops,   operates   and   maintains the infrastructure facility”. 9] In support of the above additional ground being entertained, the appellant assessee submitted that the issue of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act with regard to a jetty / port is already on record for the subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2009­10 when the claim under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of the jetty / port was allowed for the first   time.     However,   the   impugned   order   did   not permit   the   appellant   assessee   to   raise   the additional ground as urged by the appellant assessee holding that the relevant facts which would entitle the appellant to claim the benefit of Section 80IA of   the   Act   were   not   a   part   of   the   record   for assessment year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2008­09. Thus, this issue was not considered. Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 Further the impugned order holds that reliance upon Section 80IA of the Act in respect of Jetty / Port could not be allowed. 10] Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee is in appeal before us and Mr. Agarwal in support of the appeal submits as under :­ (a) The   power   of   the   Tribunal   to   admit Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 additional ground in an appeal is very wide as its basic purpose is to ascertain the correct tax     liability   of   an   assessee   in   accordance with law.    Thus, the additional ground ought to have been allowed to be raised, even if the same   was   not   urged   before   the   lower Authorities. (b) In   any   case,   the   primary   facts   i.e. the evidence of a jetty / port having been in operation since the Assessment Year 1998­99 was known   the   Revenue.     In   the   above   view,   the primary   facts   being   on   record,   the   appellant assessee   was   entitled   to   raise   an   additional ground in the appeal; and (c) In any case, in the present case, the facts in support of the additional ground being urged were   already   on   record   before   the   Tribunal inasmuch as the appellant assessee's claim for benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Jetty / Port was granted in   the   subsequent   assessment   year   namely Assessment   Year   2009­10   and,   therefore,   there was evidence on record to allow the urging of the additional ground. 11] As   against   the   above,   Mr.   Chanderpal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue in support of the impugned order submits as under :­ Uday S. Jagtap 7 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 (a) An additional ground could be urged by the   appellant   assessee   for   the   first   time   in appeal only if it is supported by evidence on record for the year under consideration; (b) In any case, under Section 80IA(7) of the   Act   deduction   under   Sub­Section   (1)   of Section 80IA of the Act, is allowable only if the   accounts   of   the   undertaking   have   been audited for the period for which deduction is claimed   and   a   report   in   Form   No.10CCB   as required under Rule 18BB(3) of the Income Tax Rules is submitted along with Return of Income. In   this   case,   admittedly,   for   the   subject assessment year, the appellant assessee had not filed necessary Form 10CCB and the audit report which   would   establish   whether   or   not   the appellant assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80IA(1) of the Act for the subject assessment year; and (c) In   any   case,   the   grant   of   benefit   of Section   80IA   of   the   Act   in   a   subsequent assessment   year   cannot   be   evidence   on   record for   an   earlier   assessment   year   to   grant   the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.  Each year   is   a   separate   assessment   year   and   the assessee must satisfy Sub­Section 4 of Section 80IA of the Act in the year for which deduction is claimed.  This by production of evidence of the same by filing Form 10CCB for the subject Uday S. Jagtap 8 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 assessment year. In the above view, it is submitted that the impugned order calls for no interference. 12] We note that it is an undisputed position before us that for the subject assessment year, the appellant   assessee   had   not   claimed   benefit   of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Jetty / Port either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A).   A claim for benefit under Section 80IA of the Act can only be made if the infrastructure facility   such   as   Jetty   /   Port   is,   among   other things, being run on the basis of an agreement for either   developing   or   operating   and   maintaining   or developing,   operating   and   maintaining   a   new infrastructure facility.  The sine qua non  provided in   Sub­Section (7) of Section 80IA of the Act is the furnishing along with its Return of Income, a report of audited accounts in Form 10CCB as required under Rule 18BBB(3) of the Act.     The Form 10CCB which is required to be filed along with Return of Uday S. Jagtap 9 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 Income   has   various   details   to   be   filled   in, including the initial assessment year from which the deduction   is   being   claimed,   the   nature   of   the activity   carried   out   with   regard   to   the infrastructure facility, namely, whether it is for developing   or   developing   and   operating   or   for developing,   operating   and   maintaining   the   new infrastructure facility.  It is only on examination of those details as submitted by the auditor in Form 10CCB that the claim of deduction can be considered. It   is   undisputed   that   for   the   subject   assessment year, no Form 10CCB has been filed by the appellant assessee.       Therefore,   there   is   no   evidence   on record   for   subject   assessment   year   to   allow   the claim.     The   submission   of   Mr.Agrawal   for   the appellant that primary evidence in the form of jetty is on record is not acceptable.  Mere ownership or existence of jetty is not evidence of eligibility to the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act, which is admittedly conditional upon satisfaction of certain requirements as provided therein. Uday S. Jagtap 10 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 13] However,   Mr.   Agarwal,   learned   Counsel appearing for the appellant assessee contends that in any case for the subsequent assessment year i.e. Assessment Year 2009­10, the appellant assessee had made a claim for benefit of deduction under Section 80IA in respect of its jetty / port and the same was allowed by the Assessing Officer. According to him, there   is   no   difference   in   the   earlier   assessment year which would warrant the Assessing Officer from taking a different view in the subject assessment year.    This cannot be accepted, more particularly for   the   reason   that   in   the   subsequent   assessment year when the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act was granted, the evidence in the form of the Auditor's report   in   Form   10CCB   of   the   Rules   was   available. This Form 10CCB of the Rules is not available on record   for   the   subject   assessment   year.     The consideration and the nature of activity may undergo a change from year to year for purposes of claiming deduction   under   Section   80IA   of   the   Act.     This deduction under Section 80IA of the Act cannot be allowed on the basis of the inference / assumption Uday S. Jagtap 11 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 that   satisfaction   of   conditions   for   a   subsequent assessment year would mean it is even so for the subject   assessment   year.   Neither   can   one   be subjected   to   tax   on   the   basis   of   assumption   or presumption nor can exemption / deduction be claimed and   allowed   on   the   basis   of   assumption   or presumption. 14] Therefore,   we   do   not   agree   with   the contention of Mr. Agarwal that once benefit under Section   80IA   of   the   Act   has   been   granted   to   the appellant assessee's jetty / port it must ipso facto follow that for the earlier years also the benefit must be granted on the mere say of the assessee that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the   case.   Admittedly,   for   the   subject   assessment year,   there   is   no   claim   made   for   the   benefit   of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act before the lower authorities and the evidence of an Auditor as required   by   law   in   Form   10CCB   of   the   Rules   for eligibility of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act is not on record.   This would be the evidence Uday S. Jagtap 12 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 which would be subject to enquiry/examination by the Assessing   Officer   and/or   the   C.I.T.   (A)   before allowing the deduction claimed.   This is a factual enquiry to be done at the time of assessment before the   claim   can   be   allowed.   Thus   the   view   of   the Tribunal   that   the   new   ground   urged   could   not   be allowed to be raised as the same is dependent upon leading of evidence and verification of the same by the Authority before the claim under Section 80IA of the Act can be allowed, cannot be faulted. 15] Mr.Agarwal   then   contended   that   once   the additional   ground   is   allowed,   he   would   lead evidence   in   support.     This   submission   seeks   to unsettle the settled position as laid down in  NTPC Ltd.  (supra)   that   additional   ground   can   be   urged before   the   appellate   authorities   provided   the evidence   is   on   record.   If   the   submission   of Mr.Agarwal is accepted, that a new ground alongwith fresh   evidence   can   be   urged   before   the   appellate authorities,   even   if   not   raised   earlier   without anything more (such as decision of Court or valid Uday S. Jagtap 13 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 reasons   for   not   raising   the   claim   earlier)   would unsettle   the   settled   law. Accepting   above submission would lead to great uncertainty and fall foul   of   one   of   the   basic   tenets   of   good   tax administration i.e. finality to assessments. 16] It   was   then   contended   by   Mr.Agarwal   that evidence   for   the   subject   assessment   year   is   on record in the form of an assessment order for the subsequent   assessment   year. Therefore,   the additional ground raised should have been admitted for consideration. 17] In   support,   he   placed   reliance   upon   the decision   of   the   Punjab   &   Haryana   High   Court   in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., Patiala  (133 ITR 231) and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indra Singh & Sons Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India & another (LXIV ITR 501). Both the aforesaid decisions arise out of rectification applications filed before the authorities and the words for consideration were “mistake apparent on the record”.  In this case, we Uday S. Jagtap 14 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 are not dealing with mistake apparent on record but with   the   raising   of   additional   grounds   in   the absence   of   evidence   on   record   for   the   subject assessment   years.   Therefore,   it   would   have   no application to the present facts. 18]   In the present facts, the necessary evidence entitling the appellant to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the subject assessment year is not on record.  As pointed out hereinabove, the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is available only when Form 10CCB is filed duly certified by the auditors. This Form 10CCB requires detailed information to be provided,   which   would   then   be   a   subject   of examination   by   the   Assessing   Officer   before extending the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 19] Mr.Agarwal   then   placed   reliance   upon   the decision of the Apex Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT (62 ITR 232).   The issue before the Tribunal was the question as to what should be the proper Uday S. Jagtap 15 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 written down value of the buildings and machinery for   calculating   depreciation   u/s   10(2)(vi)   of   the Indian   Income   Tax   Act,   1922   (1922   Act).     The assessment year involved was 1950­51 to 1952­53. In the above case, the assessee was incorporated in the native State of Indore.  Therefore, it was assessed to tax in British India as  non­resident.  After the Constitution came into force and the assessee became a   resident,   the   question   which   arose   was determination   was   the   written   down   value   of   the building and machinery for calculating depreciation u/s   10(2)(vi)   of   the   1922   Act.     The   Assessing Officer as well as the first appellate authority did not   accept   the   assessee's   contention   that   the original   cost   of   the   buildings   and   machinery   be taken   as   written   down   value   for   the     purpose   of computing depreciation. It held that only that part of the depreciation which was actually allowed under the 1922 Act could be considered while arriving at the written down value of the fixed assets.     The Tribunal remanded the entire issue to the Income Tax Officer   to   hold   further   enquiry   with   regard   to Uday S. Jagtap 16 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 whether or not the depreciation which was paid under the   Industrial   Tax   Rules   should   be   taken   into account   for   the   purpose   of   computing   the   written down value.  In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held that no objection with regard to the revenue raising the additional ground for the first time was raised before the Tribunal or before the High Court. Notwithstanding the above, the Apex Court held that even   if   it   is   assumed   that   such   an   issue   of additional ground was raised before the Tribunal, it was open to the Tribunal to consider the additional ground and for that purpose, remand the issue. The Court held that the question for consideration in appeal   from   orders   of   lower   authorities   was   the proper   written   down   value   of   the   buildings   and machinery.     Therefore   the   additional   ground   to determine the above issue could be raised. 20] In   this   case,   the   issue   of   claim   for deduction   u/s   80IA   of   the   Act   was   not   the   issue raised before the lower authorities. In the above case of  Hukumchand Mills Ltd.  (supra), it was not Uday S. Jagtap 17 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 the case of the Assessing Officer that the evidence was not on record.  In fact the order was passed on the basis of the evidence being already on record, but a new ground was being urged by the revenue. Thus,   the   aforesaid   decision   would   not   be   of   any assistance to the appellant.  In the present facts, the evidence which would entitle the appellant to raise the issue of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of port / jetty by way of an additional   ground   before   the   Tribunal   is   not   on record. 21] Mr.Agarwal   next   placed   reliance   upon   the decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in  CIT   v.   Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd. (66 ITR 710).  In this case, the assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs.93,000/­ for   introduction   of   the   “Casablanca   conversion system”   in   its   spinning   plant.     This   involved replacement   of   certain   rollers   to   the   spinning machinery,   removal   of   ring   frames   from   certain existing parts and introduction of new parts so as to make the machines more effective.   The assessee Uday S. Jagtap 18 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 claimed   development   rebate   on   the   ground   of introduction   of   “Casablanca   conversion   system” involved   in   the   installation   of   new   machinery. Before   the   Tribunal,   in   the   alternative,   for   the first time, the assessee claimed that in any event the   expenditure   incurred   for   introduction   of   the “Casablanca conversion system” should be allowed as current repairs u/s 10(2)(v) of the 1922 Act.  The Apex   Court   held   that   the   Tribunal   had   evidence before   it   from   which   it   could   conclude   that   the expenditure of Rs.93,000/­ was allowable as current repairs even if the claim for development rebate was disallowed.     In   the   aforesaid   facts,   it   would   be noted that all the evidence was available before the Tribunal entitling the appellant – assessee to raise an   additional   alternative   ground. In   these circumstances,   the   above   decision   would   also   not assist   the   appellant   –   assessee.     In   the   present facts,   the   evidence   was   not   on   record   for   the subject assessment year. 22] Mr.Agarwal   then   placed   reliance   upon   the Uday S. Jagtap 19 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 Full   Bench   decision   of   this   Court   in  Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. CIT (199 ITR 351).  In the above case, the issue involved was whether an additional   ground   could   be   raised   before   the Tribunal with regard to deductibility of the sums transferred to the contingency reserve and dividend control reserve.  During the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for the AY 1962­63 to 1971­72, the appellant – assessee did not claim the deductions on account of sums transferred to contingency reserve and   dividend   control   reserve.     However,   when   the matter was pending before the Tribunal, this Court in the case of  Amalgamated Electricity Co.Ltd. v. CIT  (97 ITR 334)  held that the amounts transferred to contingency reserve and dividend control reserve are allowed as deductions on revenue account.  It is in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Amalgamated   Electricity   Co.   Ltd.  (supra)   that   the assessee sought to raise additional grounds before the   Tribunal.       However,   the   Tribunal   refused   to grant   leave   to   the   assessee   to   raise   such   an additional   ground.     As   there   was   difference   of Uday S. Jagtap 20 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 opinion between various decisions of this Court, the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 not have been raised before the Assessing Officer or the ground now becomes available in view of changed circumstances such as a decision of a Court allowing a particular deduction. 23] Therefore, before an additional ground is allowed to be raised, the appellate authority must be satisfied that the ground raised could not have been   raised   earlier   for   good   reasons. The underlying   basis   for   allowing   the   raising   the additional   ground   in   the   case   of  Ahmedabad Electricity   Co.Ltd.  (supra)     was   the   subsequent decision   rendered   by   this   Court   in  Amalgamated Electricity Co.Ltd. (supra) when appeal was pending. As   held   by   the   subsequent   decisions   of   the   Apex Court in NTPC Ltd. (supra), a judicial decision when an   appeal   is   pending   will   entitle   raising   of additional ground. 24] In any view of the matter, the aforesaid decision   does   not   deal   with   the   situation   which arises for consideration in this case viz. relying Uday S. Jagtap 22 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 upon   the   evidence   on   record   for   a   subsequent assessment   year   to   hold   that   the   assessee   is entitled to a benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act   for   an   earlier   assessment   year.     A   deduction under   Chapter   VIA   of   the   Act   under   which   Section 80IA of the Act falls would depend, as pointed out above, upon the satisfaction of the facts necessary for   claiming   a   deduction.     The   allowing   of   a deduction   in   a   subsequent   year's   assessment   order cannot   determine   the   facts   as   existing   in   the earlier assessment year, such as in this case so as to allow the deduction. 25] Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 was there any material on record to support such a claim.     Further   the   Court   held   that   merely   by allowing the deduction for a subsequent assessment year,   it   could   not   be   held   that   conditions   for availing   the   deduction   in   the   subject   assessment were also satisfied. In the present facts also, the claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was   not   made   before   the   Assessing   Officer   or   the CIT(A) but was made for the first time only before the Tribunal nor was there any evidence in support of   the   claim   for   the   subject   assessment   year   on record.     Thus   it   stands   covered   by   the   above decision   in  Gurjargravures   Pvt.   Ltd.  (supra).  The aforesaid   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   was   subject matter of consideration in Jute Corporation of India Ltd.(supra)  wherein the Court while distinguishing Gurjargravures   Pvt.   Ltd.  (supra)   held   that   the additional ground could also be raised before the appellate Authority if such ground could not have been   raised   at   the   earlier   stage   i.e.   when   the return of income was filed. This is only when the assessee is able to satisfy the appellate Authority Uday S. Jagtap 24 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 that the ground now raised was bona fide and the same   could   not   have   been   raised   earlier   for   good reasons.   In such cases, the raising of additional ground   could   be   allowed.   In   this   case,   there   is nothing on record to indicate as to what was the reason which prevented the appellant assessee from raising a claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the   Act   for   subject   assessment   year   during   the proceedings   before   the   Assessing   Officer   and   the CIT(A).   Therefore, in the above facts , the view taken by the Tribunal in not allowing the appellant to raise additional ground in appeal is in line with the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in  Gurjargravures Pvt.Ltd. (supra),   NTPC   Ltd. (supra) and   Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 26] None   of   the   decisions   cited   by   the appellant would render the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurjargravures Pvt.Ltd. (supra), read with Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and NTPC Ltd. (supra) inapplicable to the present facts. Uday S. Jagtap 25 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 27] There can be no dispute that whether or not to allow an additional ground to be raised before the   appellate   authority   is   to   be   decided   by   the appellate   authority   in   exercise   of   its   discretion considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it.  Where only a pure question of law arises from facts which are already on record, then there is no reason why the appellate authority should not consider the question of law so as to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law.  However, where evidence is to be examined and   that   is   not   on   record,   then   it   will   be considered only if the parties seeking to raise the additional ground satisfies the authority concerned that   for   good   and   sufficient   reasons,   the   ground could not be raised before the lower authorities. In the present facts, no such ground has been made out by the assessee before the Tribunal.   In the present   facts,   as   pointed   out   above   and   being reiterated once more, the additional ground, which is raised, is not a pure question of law, but would depend upon the satisfaction of the authority as to Uday S. Jagtap 26 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 the facts existing in the subject assessment year for allowing the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act. The additional ground is being raised for the first time before the Tribunal without relevant evidence being on record. 28] In the above view, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the respondent – revenue and against the appellant – assessee. 29] Appeal is disposed of in above terms. 30] It may be pointed out that presently one of us   (Sanklecha,J.)   is   a   Visiting   Judge   to   the Aurangabad   Bench   of   this   Court   with   effect   from 10.4.2017. Therefore,   a   draft   order   of   this petition (partly dictated) was received on his e­ mail account from the Stenographer at Mumbai.   On 15.4.2017, he sought to send the draft order on his e­mail account to his Stenographer at Aurangabad to obtain print out to carry out corrections and also Uday S. Jagtap 27 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 dictate further. However, while doing so, he omitted putting   in   the   suffix   to   the   name   of   the Stenographer,   which   was   a   part   of   his   e­mail address.   Therefore, the draft order was forwarded to an incorrect e­mail account rather than to the correct   e­mail   account   of   his   Stenographer. Thereafter   (Sanklecha,J.)   forwarded   another   e­mail to the wrong addressee clearly indicating that it was   sent   by   mistake   and   not   meant   for   him.     The aforesaid facts have been recorded only to ensure transparency. (S.C. GUPTE, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) Uday S. Jagtap 28 of 28 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:50:57 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)