M/S Roadmaster Industries Of India Ltd. Rajpura v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 66 of 1994Date of Decision:-08.01.2015 M/s Roadmaster Industries of India Ltd. Rajpura ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA Present:-None for the PetitionerMs. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the Respondent HEMANT GUPTA J.(Oral) The present reference under Section 256(1) of the Income TaxAct 1961 arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on February 26, 1993, whereby therevenue was permitted to raise additional grounds in support of its appealbefore the Tribunal. In the statement of case, learned Tribunal framed thefollowing two substantial questions of law :- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in law in holdingthat grounds Nos.3 and 4 raised by the appellantin the memorandum of appeal were wide enoughto permit two additional grounds to be raised in as much as the additional grounds were held to beclarificatory in nature and by way of amplificationof the existing grounds. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowingtwo additional grounds to be raised by theappellant without adequately explaining the delayin raising those grounds.” We have gone through the record and find that no substantialquestion of law arises for consideration. The revenue in appeal before theTribunal has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) on the following four grounds :- “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition ofRs.1280/- made by the Assessing authority bydisallowing fees and taxes.the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition ofRs.1280/- made by the Assessing authority bydisallowing fees and taxes. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in allowingdepreciation on tubewells @ 10% instead of 5%allowed by the assessing officer. 3.It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be setaside and that of the Assessing Authority restored.aside and that of the Assessing Authority restored. 4.The appellant craves leave to add or amend thegrounds of appeal before it is heard and disposedof.”grounds of appeal before it is heard and disposedof.” Subsequently, the Revenue filed the following additional two grounds on 20.11.1990 :- “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowingweighter deduction under Section 35-B on theexpenses incurred on sea freight Rs.12,65,266/-,freight and other charges from Rajpura to portRs.6,89,879/-andinsurancechargesRs.1,46,109/-. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in allowing weighteddeduction under Section 35-B on bank interestRs.58,319/- and forwarding charges to bankRs.15,445/-.” After considering the arguments raised by the counsel for theRevenue and for the assessee, the Tribunal found that grounds Nos.3 and4 raised by the Revenue are wide enough to permit the Revenue to raisethe grounds regarding weighted deduction. Such ground was found to beclarificatory in nature and by way of amplification in ground Nos.3 and 4 inthe original grounds of appeal. Thus, the appeal was admitted for hearingon the additional grounds as well. After examining the record, we find that the additional grounds raised by the Revenue were rightly taken into consideration as part of thegrounds already raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the questions oflaw framed by the Tribunal are answered in affirmative holding that theTribunal was rightly held in ground Nos.3 and 4 are wide enough to include additional grounds, which are clarificatory in nature. After examining the record, we find that the additional grounds raised by the Revenue were rightly taken into consideration as part of thegrounds already raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the questions oflaw framed by the Tribunal are answered in affirmative holding that theTribunal was rightly held in ground Nos.3 and 4 are wide enough to include additional grounds, which are clarificatory in nature. As per the office report, the record of ITC No.79 of 1994 has beenburnt arising out of the same order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the said casealso merits no consideration. Disposed of. ( HEMANT GUPTA )JUDGE January 08, 2015Vijay Asija ( HARI PAL VERMA )JUDGE