CIT v. Eveline International - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2000 TaxPub(DT) 1011 (P&H-HC) : (2000) 243 ITR 0493 : (2000) 110 TAXMAN 0224 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eveline International () INCOME TAX --Appeal (Tribunal)----POWERS OF TRIBUNALEntertainability of additional ground-- Catch Note: Tribunal was right in law in admitting the additional ground on the issue which was not adjudicated by the first appellate authority and not even taken originally before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and also on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in admitting assessee's appeal regarding deduction under section 32AB from the profits, the assessee having already conceded the issue before the Commissioner (Appeal). Held: Question referred to is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India and as such no useful purpose will be served to allow a reference on this question. Tribunal is also in agreement with the counsel for the assessee that there can be no concession on an issue of law. Even though the assessee had not objected to the computation of profits under section 80 HHC after deduction under section 32 AB, yet this being a purely legal issue could be agitated before the Tribunal. A similar issue stands decided by this court in case of Vijay Kumar Join v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349 (Punj). In the said case the assessee had not pressed the ground about the validity of proceedings under section 147 before the first appellate authority. When the same was raised again in the second appeal before the Tribunal, it was not entertained on the ground that the assessee had not passed it before the first appellate authority. The High Court reversed the order of the Tribunal and held that issue being a purely legal issue going the very root of the controversy could be raised before the Tribunal. Thus, in view of the settled position, question No. 2 also requires no reference. Case Law Analysis: Jute Corporation of India v. CIT & Anr. (1990) 187 ITR 688 (SC) applied. Application: Also to current assessment year. Decision: In favour of assessee Date of Judgment: 16 November 1999 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2000 TaxPub(DT) 1011 (P&H-HC) : (2000) 243 ITR 0493 : (2000) 110 TAXMAN 0224

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eveline International ()

INCOME TAX

--Appeal (Tribunal)----POWERS OF TRIBUNALEntertainability of additional ground--

Catch Note:

Tribunal was right in law in admitting the additional ground on the issue which was not adjudicated by the first appellate authority and not even taken originally before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and also on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in admitting assessee's appeal regarding deduction under section 32AB from the profits, the assessee having already conceded the issue before the Commissioner (Appeal).

Held:

Question referred to is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India and as such no useful purpose will be served to allow a reference on this question. Tribunal is also in agreement with the counsel for the assessee that there can be no concession on an issue of law. Even though the assessee had not objected to the computation of profits under section 80 HHC after deduction under section 32 AB, yet this being a purely legal issue could be agitated before the Tribunal. A similar issue stands decided by this court in case of Vijay Kumar Join v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349 (Punj). In the said case the assessee had not pressed the ground about the validity of proceedings under section 147 before the first appellate authority. When the same was raised again in the second appeal before the Tribunal, it was not entertained on the ground that the assessee had not passed it before the first appellate authority. The High Court reversed the order of the Tribunal and held that issue being a purely legal issue going the very root of the controversy could be raised before the Tribunal. Thus, in view of the settled position, question No. 2 also requires no reference.

Case Law Analysis:

Jute Corporation of India v. CIT & Anr. (1990) 187 ITR 688 (SC) applied.

Application:

Also to current assessment year.

Decision:

In favour of assessee

Date of Judgment:

16 November 1999