High CourtsDivision Bench(2000) 12 MAD CK 0047

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ramnath Goenka and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 December 2000 · Citation: (2001) 252 ITR 653

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Jayasimha Babu, J · K. Gnanaprakasam, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Case No''s. 420 to 423 of 1989 (Reference No''s. 252 to 255 of 1989 and T.C.M.P. No''s. 50 to 53 of 1999)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 377 words

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—All that the Tribunal has done is to provide relief which was consequential and flowed from its own finding in the

appeal. The fact that such relief was provided does not in any way make that order of the Tribunal defective.

2.

The Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, has held that it is open to the Tribunal

to allow a new ground to be raised even if such ground had not been raised in the proceedings before the authorities below that of the Tribunal, in

order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee, provided the facts required for deciding the question raised are available in the assessment

proceedings-There is no dispute that all the facts required for granting the consequential relief were part of the record of the assessment

proceedings. The Tribunal in its elaborate order rightly referred to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State

of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., while holding that

the Tribunal had primary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it and further that the

Tribunal is duty bound to grant relief to which the assessee is entitled even though there was no plea in that regard. The Tribunal has also rightly

pointed out that while the Revenue can resort to Section 147 read with Section 153(3) to review the assessment and assess the escaped income,

there is no corresponding provision requiring the Revenue to amend the assessment and to grant consequential relief on the basis of the findings

given in the appeal.

3.

The Tribunal in this case has found that the investment made by the assessee was out of the borrowed capital and, therefore, interest on such

capital could not be deducted while computing the income from the business. In the miscellaneous petition, it has been rightly held that such interest

is to be taken into account while computing the income from other sources. The assessment years are 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. T.

C.M.Ps. Nos. 50 to 53 of 1999 are ordered.