Gauhati HC: DRT Has to Dispose of Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act as per RDB Act  ||  Kerala HC: Showing or Waving Black Flag to a Person Cannot Amount to Defamation  ||  Del. HC: Merit Based Review of Arb. Award Involving Reappraisal of Factual Findings is Impermissible  ||  Del. HC: It is the Product and Not the Technology Used that Determines HSN Classification  ||  P&H HC: Provis. of Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment) Rules are Unconstitutional  ||  Cal HC: High Time that Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be Read as Grounds of Desertion & Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Third Party Can File SLP Against Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Absolute Ownership in Property as Per HSA Can’t be Claimed by Woman with Limited Interest  ||  SC: Can’t Forego Fundamental Requirements of Election of Society in Absence of Specific Provisions  ||  SC: Special Efforts Should be Made to Identify Women Prisoners Eligible for Release u/s 479 of BNSS    

Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Delhi vs. ACIT - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (24 Mar 2023)

Assessee is entitled to raise the additional ground not merely in terms of legal submissions but also legal claim not made in the return filed by it

MANU/ID/0472/2023

Direct Taxation

Asessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of formulation and marketing of plant protection agro-chemical, including insecticides, herbicides etc. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.118,61,64,030. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,23,48,92,320. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal.

The issue in the present ground is with respect to the claim of the assessee that, the excise duty subsidy availed by it is capital receipt. It is an undisputed fact that the claim of excise duty subsidy being capital in nature was not made before the AO but was claimed through additional ground before CIT(A). The claim of excise duty being capital receipt was not accepted by CIT(A) in view of the fact that no claim was made before the AO and no reasons were furnished by assessee to demonstrate as to what prevented the assessee from raising such claim before the AO. Present Tribunal do not agree with the reasoning of CIT(A) for denying the claim of the assessee in view of the facts that, Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation India Ltd. vs. CIT and other decisions has held that, assessee is entitled to raise the additional ground not merely in terms of legal submissions but also legal claim not made in the return filed by it. It has further held that the appellate authorities have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the additional ground and deciding the issue.

With regard to claim and quantum of excise duty subsidy is concerned, assessee has neither placed any material on record to demonstrate as to what is the excise duty refund claimed and other relevant details. Further, in the absence of any finding on the issue of lower authorities and considering the totality of the facts, the issue raised in the present ground needs to be re-examined at the end of CIT(A). Present Tribunal, therefore, restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) and direct him to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   ADDITIONAL GROUND   RAISING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved