Madel, Margao- Salcete, Goa 403 602 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. TAX APPEAL NO. 64/2016 M/s Pentair Water India Private Limited A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered office at L/2/55, Verna Industrial Estate, Phase II, Verna Salcette, Goa. Through its Director (Finance) Shri G M K Venkata Rao, Son of Venkata Subba Rao Gudivada, Aged 39 years, Occupation Service, Residing at `G6, Ashad Housing Society, Madel, Margao- Salcete, Goa 403 602 Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panjim, Goa. Respondent... Mr. Jitendra Jain, Advocate with Ms.Sonia Shetye, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : F.M.REIS & NUTAN D.SARDESSAI, JJDECIDED ON : 19/09/2016. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.M. REIS, J): 1] Heard Mr. Jitendra Jain, learned Advocate with Ms.Sonia Shetye, learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Asha Desai, learned Advocate for the respondent. Admit, on the following substantial question of law:- Whether on a true and proper construction of Section 254 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide an issue which was not in dispute between the parties and wasalso not subject matter of appeal before them? 3] Ms. Asha Desai, learned Advocate waives notice onbehalf of the respondent. 4] Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, themain grievance of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal whiledisposing of the appeal has considered grounds which were notraised in the appeal memo. It is further pointed out on behalf ofthe appellant that the issues which were raised based on thegrounds of appeal were not even considered nor decided by thelearned Tribunal. It is also pointed out that no opportunity wasgiven to the appellant to meet such new aspects considered bylearned Tribunal while disposing of the appeal filed by therespondent. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal isbound to decide the issues raised in the memo of appeal by theappellant. On the other hand, Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counselappearing for the respondent, submits that in fact the issueswhich are raised in the memo of appeal have not beenconsidered by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel pointsout that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal are relevant to decide the matter in controversy. 5]Considering the rival contentions, the fact that thethe appellant was not heard before examining the new grounddealt and considered by the learned Tribunal while disposing ofthe appeal filed by the respondent is not disputed. In suchcircumstances, on this ground alone the impugned order passedby the learned Tribunal stands vitiated and as such deserves to bequashed and set aside. The appellant are entitled to be heard onall grounds which are considered by the learned Tribunal.Consequently, the learned Tribunal would have to decide theappeal afresh after giving a hearing to the concerned parties. 6]In view of the above, the impugned order dated 3[rd]May, 2016 is quashed and set aside. ITA No.223/PAN/2014 isrestored to file of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal todecide the appeal preferred by the respondent afresh afterhearing the parties in accordance with law. All contentions of theparties are left open. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J F.M. REIS, J mukund