ORDER
P.M. Jagtap, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dated 18-3-1997, and in ground No. 1 raised therein, the assessee has challenged the action of learned CIT(A) in not admitting the additional grounds sought to be raised during the course of appellate proceedings before him whereas ground Nos. 2 and 3 relate to merits of the issues raised in the said additional grounds.
2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee- company is a Government of India undertaking vested with ownership, management and running of airports in India. It also renders consultancy services and undertakes designing and construction of airports both in India and abroad. A return of income was filed by it for the year under consideration on 31-12-1993, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,06,20,30,860. The assessment came to be made under section 143(3) by the assessing officer vide his order dated 19-3-1996, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,06,67,39,040. The main addition made by the assessing officer in the said assessment was that of Rs. 36.90 lakhs on account of income accrued to the assessee on account of interest but not received during the year under consideration. The said addition was challenged by the assessee in an appeal preferred before the learned CIT(A) and vide his impugned order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the said addition made by the assessing officer allowing relief to the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee- company sought to raise the following two additional grounds :
2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee- company is a Government of India undertaking vested with ownership, management and running of airports in India. It also renders consultancy services and undertakes designing and construction of airports both in India and abroad. A return of income was filed by it for the year under consideration on 31-12-1993, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,06,20,30,860. The assessment came to be made under section 143(3) by the assessing officer vide his order dated 19-3-1996, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,06,67,39,040. The main addition made by the assessing officer in the said assessment was that of Rs. 36.90 lakhs on account of income accrued to the assessee on account of interest but not received during the year under consideration. The said addition was challenged by the assessee in an appeal preferred before the learned CIT(A) and vide his impugned order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the said addition made by the assessing officer allowing relief to the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee- company sought to raise the following two additional grounds :
“(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, depreciation on the building of the appellant used for operational purposes be allowed treating the said building as plant.
(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant be granted exemption under section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of income from letting out godowns and warehouses.”
3. Reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee-company on the following case law in support of his case for the admission of the aforesaid additional grounds :
3. Reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee-company on the following case law in support of his case for the admission of the aforesaid additional grounds :
1. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC);
2. CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC);
3. CIT v. S. Nelliappan (1967) 66 1TR 722 (SC);
4. Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 563 (SC);
5. Gundathur Thimmappa & Sons v. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 70 (Mys);
6. CED v. R. Brahadeeswaran (1987) 163 ITR 680 (Mad);
7. New India Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 1010 (Guj);
8. CIT v. Sayaji Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 26 (Guj);
9. J.S. Parkai v. V.B. Palekar & Ors. (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom);
10. Ciba of India Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 1 (Bom); and
11. Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 1 (Del).
4. The aforesaid judicial pronouncements, however, were found to be of no help to the assessees case by the learned CIT(A) for the reasons given in his impugned order and he refused to admit the aforesaid two additional grounds raised by the assessee for the following reasons given in his impugned order
4. The aforesaid judicial pronouncements, however, were found to be of no help to the assessees case by the learned CIT(A) for the reasons given in his impugned order and he refused to admit the aforesaid two additional grounds raised by the assessee for the following reasons given in his impugned order
(1) Additional grounds can be admitted only when there was material on record to support the claim of the assessee made therein which was not the position in the present case inasmuch as there was no such classification of building as operational buildings available on record and, therefore, its claim for depreciation at higher rate treating the same as plant raised in additional ground No. (i) could not have been decided on the basis of material available on record. Similarly, no separate income derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities was shown in the P&L a/c in order to decide the issue relating to exemption under section 10(29) claimed by the assessee-company in additional ground No. (ii).
(2) Neither any claim was made before the Income Tax Officer as sought to be raised in the additional grounds nor was there any material on record supporting such claim.
(3) The issues raised in the additional grounds could have been raised even at the stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was framed and in the absence of the same, the same cannot be allowed to be raised directly in the appellate proceedings, especially when neither there was any change of circumstances nor there was any change in the law in between. The appellant was aware of its legal right at the relevant time but failed to make the claim before the assessing officer.
(4) The depreciation claimed by the assessee on building at 10 per cent in its return of income was allowed by the assessing officer in his order passed under section 143(3). It, therefore, cannot be said to have any grievance on this count. Similarly, the assessee cannot be said to have been aggrieved on account of its claim under section 10(29) as no such claim was made before the assessing officer. Hence, no appeal lies and emanates from the order of the assessing officer.
(5) The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(29) for the first time in assessment year 1991-92 before the assessing officer by filing the revised return on 31-3-1993. The assessing officer, however, disallowed the same vide his order dated 25-8-1993. The assessee took his claim for the enhanced depreciation on operational buildings before the CIT(A) for assessment year 1991-92 as additional ground and it was allowed. Similarly, the assessee claimed deduction under section 10(29) as well as enhanced claim for depreciation on operational building in the form of additional ground before CIT(A) for assessment year 1992-93 who accepted the same. The assessee, therefore, was aware as early as on 31-3-1993, that he is entitled to claim the enhanced depreciation on operational buildings and exemption under section 10(29), but he did not claim the same before the assessing officer for the year under consideration even during the course of assessment proceedings, which continued upto 19-2-1996. It is thus clear that he did not intentionally made the said claims during the course of assessment proceedings in order to avoid the assessing officer. Similarly, he did not raise the said issues in the original grounds raised in his appeal filed on 2-5-1996, which clearly shows that the omission of the said grounds from the form of appeal was wilful and unreasonable.
5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that both the issues sought to be raised by the assessee in the additional grounds before the learned CIT(A) were purely legal issues and since all the facts required to adjudicate the same were available on record, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the said additional grounds. Referring to the schedule of fixed assets placed at p. 8 of his paper book, he submitted that the details of operational building were separately shown by the assessee in the said statement forming part of its balance sheet filed along with the return of income and even the exact amount of income from warehousing for the purpose of deciding the issue relating to the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10(29) was- shown separately to the credit of P&L a/c as Cargo income. He further submitted that the claim of the assessee for higher rate of depreciation on operational building treating the same as plant was allowed by the learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 22-5-1996, for assessment year 1991-92 when the same was raised in the form of additional ground. He also invited our attention to a copy of the said order placed at pp. 11 to 16 of his paper book. He further invited our attention to the copy of the appellate order of learned CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1992-93, dated 22-5-1996, placed at pp. 17 to 26 of his paper book and pointed out that the additional grounds raised by the assessee relating to the issue of higher depreciation on operational building and exemption under section 10(29) were not only admitted by the learned CIT(A) but even the issues raised therein were decided in favour of the assessee by the first appellate authority on merits. Referring to p. 9 of his paper book, he pointed out that the cargo revenue shown separately to the credit of P&L a/c represented the income of the assessee from warehousing on which exemption under section 10(29) was claimed and this aspect could have been got verified by the learned CIT(A) from the assessing officer for the purpose of deciding the issue relating to exemption under section 10(29) as raised in the additional ground. Referring to the order of the Tribunal, dated 26th June, 2003, passed in assessees own case for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 placed at p. 72 of his paper book, he pointed out that both the appeals filed by the revenue against the aforesaid orders of learned CIT(A) for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 have been dismissed by the Tribunal in limine for want of COD approval and thus the said orders of the CIT(A) have become final.
5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that both the issues sought to be raised by the assessee in the additional grounds before the learned CIT(A) were purely legal issues and since all the facts required to adjudicate the same were available on record, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the said additional grounds. Referring to the schedule of fixed assets placed at p. 8 of his paper book, he submitted that the details of operational building were separately shown by the assessee in the said statement forming part of its balance sheet filed along with the return of income and even the exact amount of income from warehousing for the purpose of deciding the issue relating to the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10(29) was- shown separately to the credit of P&L a/c as Cargo income. He further submitted that the claim of the assessee for higher rate of depreciation on operational building treating the same as plant was allowed by the learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 22-5-1996, for assessment year 1991-92 when the same was raised in the form of additional ground. He also invited our attention to a copy of the said order placed at pp. 11 to 16 of his paper book. He further invited our attention to the copy of the appellate order of learned CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1992-93, dated 22-5-1996, placed at pp. 17 to 26 of his paper book and pointed out that the additional grounds raised by the assessee relating to the issue of higher depreciation on operational building and exemption under section 10(29) were not only admitted by the learned CIT(A) but even the issues raised therein were decided in favour of the assessee by the first appellate authority on merits. Referring to p. 9 of his paper book, he pointed out that the cargo revenue shown separately to the credit of P&L a/c represented the income of the assessee from warehousing on which exemption under section 10(29) was claimed and this aspect could have been got verified by the learned CIT(A) from the assessing officer for the purpose of deciding the issue relating to exemption under section 10(29) as raised in the additional ground. Referring to the order of the Tribunal, dated 26th June, 2003, passed in assessees own case for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 placed at p. 72 of his paper book, he pointed out that both the appeals filed by the revenue against the aforesaid orders of learned CIT(A) for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 have been dismissed by the Tribunal in limine for want of COD approval and thus the said orders of the CIT(A) have become final.
6. The learned departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of section 250(5) relating to the admission of additional ground by the learned CIT(A) are very specific and if he is satisfied that the omission of the additional grounds sought to be raised before him from the form of appeal is willful or unreasonable, he has every right to refuse to admit the same. He submitted that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee in the present case on 31-12-1993, and the assessment order was passed finally by the assessing officer in February, 1996. According to him, the assessee was well aware of its claim for higher depreciation on operational building as well as on exemption under section 10(29) prior to that as pointed out by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order. He contended that the assessee, however, did not choose to stake the said claims before the assessing officer even during the course of assessment proceedings for the year under consideration for the reasons best known to him and it was thus a clear case to avoid the assessing officer for which no satisfactory explanation was offered by the assessee. He further contended that even the omission on the part of the assessee to raise the said issues originally in the grounds in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee and since such omission in the facts and circumstances of the case was unreasonable as made out by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order, he was right in refusing to admit the additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee. Relying on the decision of Honble Supreme court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (supra), the learned departmental Representative submitted that it was for the assessee to establish that the issues sought to be raised in the additional grounds could not be raised in the original grounds for good and valid reasons and the assessee having failed to explain the same to the satisfaction of the learned CIT(A), the admission of additional grounds was rightly refused by him in accordance with the provisions of section 250(5).
6. The learned departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of section 250(5) relating to the admission of additional ground by the learned CIT(A) are very specific and if he is satisfied that the omission of the additional grounds sought to be raised before him from the form of appeal is willful or unreasonable, he has every right to refuse to admit the same. He submitted that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee in the present case on 31-12-1993, and the assessment order was passed finally by the assessing officer in February, 1996. According to him, the assessee was well aware of its claim for higher depreciation on operational building as well as on exemption under section 10(29) prior to that as pointed out by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order. He contended that the assessee, however, did not choose to stake the said claims before the assessing officer even during the course of assessment proceedings for the year under consideration for the reasons best known to him and it was thus a clear case to avoid the assessing officer for which no satisfactory explanation was offered by the assessee. He further contended that even the omission on the part of the assessee to raise the said issues originally in the grounds in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee and since such omission in the facts and circumstances of the case was unreasonable as made out by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order, he was right in refusing to admit the additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee. Relying on the decision of Honble Supreme court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (supra), the learned departmental Representative submitted that it was for the assessee to establish that the issues sought to be raised in the additional grounds could not be raised in the original grounds for good and valid reasons and the assessee having failed to explain the same to the satisfaction of the learned CIT(A), the admission of additional grounds was rightly refused by him in accordance with the provisions of section 250(5).
7. In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that similar issues were raised by the assessee before the assessing officer during the course of appellate (sic- assessment) proceedings for assessment year 1991-92. However, he disallowed the same in the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) and also levied additional tax of Rs. 3.63 crores on the assessee. He submitted that in view of this additional levy, the assessee was advised by the Ministry of Civil Aviation to wait for CIT(A)s orders for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and then to make similar claim for the year under consideration, i.e., 1993-94. He submitted that the appellate orders for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 were passed by the learned CIT(A) on 22-5-1996, and immediately thereafter, the additional grounds were sought to be raised before the learned CIT(A) by the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e., 1993-94 by letter dated 10-6-1996.
7. In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that similar issues were raised by the assessee before the assessing officer during the course of appellate (sic- assessment) proceedings for assessment year 1991-92. However, he disallowed the same in the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) and also levied additional tax of Rs. 3.63 crores on the assessee. He submitted that in view of this additional levy, the assessee was advised by the Ministry of Civil Aviation to wait for CIT(A)s orders for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and then to make similar claim for the year under consideration, i.e., 1993-94. He submitted that the appellate orders for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 were passed by the learned CIT(A) on 22-5-1996, and immediately thereafter, the additional grounds were sought to be raised before the learned CIT(A) by the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e., 1993-94 by letter dated 10-6-1996.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused relevant material on record. It is observed that the additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee were not admitted by the learned CIT(A) giving various reasons in his impugned order. First of all, although he agreed that the issues raised in the additional grounds are purely legal, the admission thereof was refused by him on the ground that all the facts required to decide the said issues are not available on record. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out with the help of relevant financial statements filed along with the return by the assessee that the required factual details in the form of exact value of operational building and separate income from warehousing activity were available on record before the learned CIT(A). Moreover, the learned CIT(A) having all the powers which are co-terminus. with the assessing officer, could have obtained any further information/clarification in the matter from the books of account and other records maintained by the assessee and as such, his action in refusing to admit the additional grounds for this reason, in our opinion, was not well founded.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused relevant material on record. It is observed that the additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee were not admitted by the learned CIT(A) giving various reasons in his impugned order. First of all, although he agreed that the issues raised in the additional grounds are purely legal, the admission thereof was refused by him on the ground that all the facts required to decide the said issues are not available on record. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out with the help of relevant financial statements filed along with the return by the assessee that the required factual details in the form of exact value of operational building and separate income from warehousing activity were available on record before the learned CIT(A). Moreover, the learned CIT(A) having all the powers which are co-terminus. with the assessing officer, could have obtained any further information/clarification in the matter from the books of account and other records maintained by the assessee and as such, his action in refusing to admit the additional grounds for this reason, in our opinion, was not well founded.
9. The second and main reason given by the learned CIT(A) for refusing to admit the additional grounds was that the assessee was aware of his claim on both the issues raised in the additional grounds even before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, but he still did not choose to raise the same either before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings or even in the form of appeal filed originally before him. The omission of the assessee in raising the said grounds in the form of appeal, therefore, was willful and unreasonable. In this regard, it is, observed that similar claims made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1991-92 by filing a revised return were disallowed by the assessing officer by way of prima facie adjustments under section 143(1)(a) and resultantly, additional liability of Rs. 3.63 crores on account of additional tax was imposed on the assessee. Keeping in view these adverse results of its attempt to make the said claims in assessment year 1991-92, the assessee is stated to have consulted the Ministry of Civil Aviation which advised it to wait for the orders of learned CIT(A) for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in which similar issues were involved. Although, there is no documentary evidence to support and substantiate this contention of the assessee, the fact that the assessee is working under the supervision and control of Ministry of Civil Aviation and that advice is generally sought from the parent ministry for such important decisions involving substantial financial stakes in the form of tax liability, is sufficient to show that the explanation offered by the assessee in this regard was reasonably acceptable. Moreover, the fact that the additional grounds were sought to be raised by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings for the year under consideration by letter dated 10-6-1996, i.e., immediately after the passing of appellate orders for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 by the learned CIT(A) on 22-5-1996, allowing the similar claims made by the assessee, further supports the assessees case that such advice in fact was given by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the assessee indeed had acted upon such advice. In any case, the very fact that the similar claim made by the assessee was disallowed by the assessing officer in assessment year 1991-92 resulting into additional liability of Rs. 3.63 crores on account of additional tax coupled with the fact that similar claims made before the learned CIT(A) for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the form of additional grounds were pending before him justifies the stand taken by the assessee to first wait for the said decisions and depending on the outcome of the same, to further proceed in the matter by raising the additional grounds in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) for the year under consideration. In our opinion, such a stand taken by the assessee could not be considered as willful or unreasonable, especially when it is a case of public sector undertaking having no personal interest.
9. The second and main reason given by the learned CIT(A) for refusing to admit the additional grounds was that the assessee was aware of his claim on both the issues raised in the additional grounds even before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, but he still did not choose to raise the same either before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings or even in the form of appeal filed originally before him. The omission of the assessee in raising the said grounds in the form of appeal, therefore, was willful and unreasonable. In this regard, it is, observed that similar claims made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1991-92 by filing a revised return were disallowed by the assessing officer by way of prima facie adjustments under section 143(1)(a) and resultantly, additional liability of Rs. 3.63 crores on account of additional tax was imposed on the assessee. Keeping in view these adverse results of its attempt to make the said claims in assessment year 1991-92, the assessee is stated to have consulted the Ministry of Civil Aviation which advised it to wait for the orders of learned CIT(A) for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in which similar issues were involved. Although, there is no documentary evidence to support and substantiate this contention of the assessee, the fact that the assessee is working under the supervision and control of Ministry of Civil Aviation and that advice is generally sought from the parent ministry for such important decisions involving substantial financial stakes in the form of tax liability, is sufficient to show that the explanation offered by the assessee in this regard was reasonably acceptable. Moreover, the fact that the additional grounds were sought to be raised by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings for the year under consideration by letter dated 10-6-1996, i.e., immediately after the passing of appellate orders for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 by the learned CIT(A) on 22-5-1996, allowing the similar claims made by the assessee, further supports the assessees case that such advice in fact was given by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the assessee indeed had acted upon such advice. In any case, the very fact that the similar claim made by the assessee was disallowed by the assessing officer in assessment year 1991-92 resulting into additional liability of Rs. 3.63 crores on account of additional tax coupled with the fact that similar claims made before the learned CIT(A) for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the form of additional grounds were pending before him justifies the stand taken by the assessee to first wait for the said decisions and depending on the outcome of the same, to further proceed in the matter by raising the additional grounds in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) for the year under consideration. In our opinion, such a stand taken by the assessee could not be considered as willful or unreasonable, especially when it is a case of public sector undertaking having no personal interest.
10. The expression unreasonable is opposite of reasonable and refers to one which does not stand to reason. In the case of Griffiths (Inspector of Taxes) v. J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd. (1965) 58 ITR 328 (PC), Honble Privy Council has observed that unreasonable means so unreasonable that it can be dismissed as one which could not reasonably be accepted. In our opinion, the omission on the part of the assessee in the present case in raising the grounds in question in the original appeal was not such that it did not stand to reason or that it could not reasonably be accepted, as discussed earlier in this order and this being so, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding the same as unreasonable and in refusing to admit the additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee before him. In the case of Ramgopal Ganpat Rai & Sons Ltd. v. CTT (1953) 24 ITR 362 (Bom), the Honble Bombay High Court has observed that when a statute confers a right of appeal and permits an order of a trial court to be challenged, the appellate court has full jurisdiction to reverse or modify that order on any ground which is open to it in law. Explaining further, their Lordships of Bombay High Court observed that the appellate court may even reverse or modify the order on a point of law taken by itself suo motu without being asked to do so by the appellant. The Honble Bombay High Court, therefore, held that it is the inherent jurisdiction of every Tribunal to decide any question of law arising out of an order of the subordinate court which order is before it in appeal and if that be the true position, then once the right was given to the assessee- company to appeal against an order of the assessing officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had every jurisdiction to deal with that order on any ground of law which applied to the facts on which that order was passed. To the similar effect are the decisions of Honble Rajasthan High Court in the cases of CTT v, Gokuldas & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 633 (Raj) and CIT v. Plastic Dela Foot Wear (1993) 203 ITR 759 (Raj). Keeping in view this legal position emanating from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the reasons given earlier in this order, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in. refusing to admit the aforesaid additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee before him. His impugned order on this issue is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to him with a direction to admit the said additional grounds raised by the assessee and to decide the same on merits.
10. The expression unreasonable is opposite of reasonable and refers to one which does not stand to reason. In the case of Griffiths (Inspector of Taxes) v. J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd. (1965) 58 ITR 328 (PC), Honble Privy Council has observed that unreasonable means so unreasonable that it can be dismissed as one which could not reasonably be accepted. In our opinion, the omission on the part of the assessee in the present case in raising the grounds in question in the original appeal was not such that it did not stand to reason or that it could not reasonably be accepted, as discussed earlier in this order and this being so, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding the same as unreasonable and in refusing to admit the additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee before him. In the case of Ramgopal Ganpat Rai & Sons Ltd. v. CTT (1953) 24 ITR 362 (Bom), the Honble Bombay High Court has observed that when a statute confers a right of appeal and permits an order of a trial court to be challenged, the appellate court has full jurisdiction to reverse or modify that order on any ground which is open to it in law. Explaining further, their Lordships of Bombay High Court observed that the appellate court may even reverse or modify the order on a point of law taken by itself suo motu without being asked to do so by the appellant. The Honble Bombay High Court, therefore, held that it is the inherent jurisdiction of every Tribunal to decide any question of law arising out of an order of the subordinate court which order is before it in appeal and if that be the true position, then once the right was given to the assessee- company to appeal against an order of the assessing officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had every jurisdiction to deal with that order on any ground of law which applied to the facts on which that order was passed. To the similar effect are the decisions of Honble Rajasthan High Court in the cases of CTT v, Gokuldas & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 633 (Raj) and CIT v. Plastic Dela Foot Wear (1993) 203 ITR 759 (Raj). Keeping in view this legal position emanating from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the reasons given earlier in this order, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in. refusing to admit the aforesaid additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee before him. His impugned order on this issue is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to him with a direction to admit the said additional grounds raised by the assessee and to decide the same on merits.
11. Keeping in view our decision rendered on ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in the preceding paragraphs of this order, we do not deem it expedient to render any decision on ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee relating to merits of the issues sought to be raised in the additional grounds.
11. Keeping in view our decision rendered on ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in the preceding paragraphs of this order, we do not deem it expedient to render any decision on ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee relating to merits of the issues sought to be raised in the additional grounds.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.