Jupiter International (Sales v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.687 of 2010 ====================================================== Jupiter International (Sales) .... .... Appellant/s Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax & A .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. K.N. Prasad, Adv. Mr. K.C.K.Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Adv. Mr. Archana Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 6 05-03-2013 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. The present Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal assailed to the extent that it declines to allow the appellant to raise the issue of depreciation for the reason that he is alleged not to have raised the claim specifically before the CIT (A). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue for depreciation was specifically raised as a ground before the Tribunal. It being a question of law, even if the Tribunal was of the opinion that it had not been sufficiently raised before the CIT (A), the Tribunal was obliged to consider the challenge and decide it in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on (1998) 229 ITR 383. 2 The Supreme Court referring to Section 254 of the Income Tax Act has held that the power of the Tribunal while dealing with Appeal is in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. There was no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the CIT (A). The appellant authority was vested with all the plenary powers and there was no reason to justify curtailment of the powers. The view of the Tribunal that jurisdiction was confined only to issues arising out of the Appeal before the CIT (A) was a narrow view of the Appellate powers of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents submits since there has been a partial remand to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal, the present matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer. We are not inclined to pass any such order at this stage. The question before us is whether the Tribunal fell in error by declining to entertain the challenge to deprecation on the ground that it was not raised before the CIT (A). The discussion in the order of the Supreme Court relied on behalf of the Appellant leads us to hold the impugned order unsustainable. We therefore remand the matter to the Tribunal after setting aside the order dated 23.3.2010 to the extent of depreciation only. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal thereafter remains unfettered. We order accordingly. The Appeal stands allowed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J) P. Kumar/-