AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Iyer, J.—This reference u/s 66(2) of the Indian Income-"" tax Act relates to the assessment years, 1939-40 and 1941-42 to
1946-47, the relative year of account ending, on the 12th of April, of each year of assessment. One Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) and his son,
Arunachalam (junior), constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. They were resident in India. The family had considerable properties in
India and outside, comprising tea and rubber estates, cocoanut gardens and several money lending businesses. Arunachalam Chettiar (junior) died
in 1934, leaving behind him his widow, Umayal Achi. Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) who survived his son, died on 22nd February, 1938. On his
death, the claimants to the properties were his two widows, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi, and his widowed daughter-in-law, Umayal Achi.
Some time prior to his death, that is, on 8th January, 1938, Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) executed a will, making certain dispositions. Under the
will, the executors were directed to arrange for the adoption of a son to each of the three ladies (such multiple adoption being presumably
sanctioned by the custom of the Nattukottai Chettiar community). The will directed that, after the payment of legacies, the three adopted sons were
to divide the properties equally. Umayal Achi, however, did not accept the will. She filed a suit in the Sub-Court, Devakottai, claiming a half share
in the estate, left by her deceased father-in-law. The claim was laid on the basis of the rights conferred by the Hindu Women''s Rights to Property
Act, 1937, under which the widow of the pre-deceased son of an individual who died after the coming into force of the Act was entitled to certain
rights. Pending the suit, that is, on 18th August, 1938, two Advocates, Ramaswami Iyengar and Subramania Iyer, were appointed Joint Receivers
to manage the properties involved in the suit. As a part of their management, the Receivers continued the various businesses, which Arunachalam
(senior) had carried on in his lifetime.
The suit was resisted by the two widows of Arunachalam (senior), who denied the right of Umayal Achi to inheritance. The Trial Court found
that the will executed by the deceased was a genuine one, but that Umayal Achi would be entitled to one half share in all the properties in India and
in the.moveable properties situate outside India, subject to the payment of the legacies mentioned in the will. As regards the Immovable properties
situate outside India, the Court held that succession to the properties would be governed by the law of the place where the properties were situate.
In accordance with the judgment, a preliminary decree was passed on 26th October, 1940. There were appeals against the decree to this Court;
this Court modified the decree of the lower Court, restricting it to the non-agricultural and moveable properties situate in India. The judgment of the
High Court is reported in Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi (1944) 1 M.LJ. 70, Umayal Achi filed an appeal against the decree of the High Court to
the Federal Court. The Federal Court, by its judgment, dated 8th January, 1945, held that Umayal Achi would be entitled to one half share in the
separate non-agricultural properties left by the deceased and in the moveables. The Court directed that there should be an ascertainment by the
Subordinate Judge as to what were the separate properties that belonged to the deceased, in which the lady would have a right to a share. (The
Judgment of the Federal Court is reported in Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi (1945) 1 M.L.J. 108
In June, 1945, each of the three ladies adopted a son, as directed by the will. It is stated that there was an ante-adoption agreement in each
case, defining the rights inter se between the son to be adopted and the respective adoptive mother. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Federal
Court, Umayal Achi filed an appeal to the Privy Council, after obtaining leave for the same.
While the appeal was pending in the Privy Gouncil, the ladies, on behalf of themselves and their respective adopted son, entered into a
compromise, under which each of the widows, representing herself and her adopted son, agreed to take 1 /3rd share of the entire estate left by the
deceased. The compromise was, dated 17th December, 1947. It is claimed that the ladies subsequently divided what they obtained under the
compromise with their adopted sons, in accordance with the ante-adoption agreement. In October, 1954, the Receivers were discharged.
In the meanwhile proceedings for the assessment of income from the businesses and properties left by the deceased were initiated against the
Receivers. For the Assessment ye''ar 1939-40, the Officers of the Income Tax Department assessed the Receivers u/s 41 of the Indian Income
Tax Act. They held that the shares of the widows being in dispute should be held to be indeterminate, and therefore levied the maximum tax on the
total income under the First Proviso to Section 41. That assessment was duly taken on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. By its order, dated 28th
January, 1942, the Appellate Tribunal held that the three widows were the legal heirs of the deceased, that their shares could not be said to be
indeterminate, though it might be that they had not yet been determined by the Court; and that, therefore, the levy of tax at the maximum rate was
not justified. There was, however, some defect in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as, in the final paragraph, it did not give effect to the finding
referred to above. This was rectified, on an application u/s 35, on 11 th February, 1946. The order on the rectification petition made it clear that
the assessment was to be made on the shares of each of the widows. By the earlier order referred to above, the Tribunal directed the Income Tax
Officer to compute the income, in accordance with the finding given. The Income Tax Officer held that, on the material dates, the beneficiaries of
the estate were only the two widows of Arunachalam Chettiar (senior), the rights of Umayal Achi having come into existence under the
compromise long thereafter. The Officer, therefore, allocated the income equally in two shares between the widows, and assessed the Receivers to
tax thereon. On this point, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concurred with the Income Tax Officer. This was not accepted by the Receivers,
who filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. That appeal was heard along with the appeals for subsequent years, to which we shall make
reference presently.
For the years subsequent namely, 1941-4210 1945-46, during which period neither the adoptions aor the compromise had come into
existence, the Income Tax Officer likewise held that the income should be divided into two shares for the purpose of assessment. Individual
assessments of Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi were made directly. As stated already, the adoption was made by the widows on 16th June,
1945, that is, during the year of account relative to the assessment year 1946-47.
The Income Tax Officer assessed the income received by the Receivers from 13th April, 1945, to 16th June, 1945, on two individuals, namely,
Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi, and the income for the subsequent period namely, from 17th June, 1945, to 12th April, 1946, on the three
persons, namely, Lakshmi Achi, Nachiar Achi and Umayal Achi. The assessee contested the propriety of the assessment, on the ground, that it
should have been made on 6 units, namely, the widows and their respective adopted sons. The basis of the contention was (1) that Umayal Achi''s
rights should be held to date back to the date when the succession opened, and (2) that the rights of the respective adopted sons should date back
to the dates of death of their adoptive fathers. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the contention of the; asessee, and confirmed the
assessment, as made, by the Income Tax Officer. Appeals were, thereupon, filed by the Receivers to the Appellate Tribunal. The only matter,
which formed the subject-matter of the appeals, was as to the number of shares in which the assessment on the Receivers should be divided. There
was no objection on the part of either the assessee or the Department to the assessment itself being made u/s 41. There was no appeal on behalf of
the Department either that the assessment u/s 41 was wrong, and that the proper way of assessing the profits from the businesses carried on by the
Receivers was to assess them directly u/s 10.
The Appellate Tribunal, which heard the appeals for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1946-47, along with the appeal for the asessment year
1939-40, called for a report from the Income Tax Officer as to whether the businesses which the deceased carried on were continued by the
Receivers during the relevant years. The Income Tax Officer reported in the affirmative, namely, that the businesses of the deceased were carried
on by the Receivers jointly. On that finding, which the Appellate Tribunal accepted, it came to the conclusion that the proper way of making the
assessment was to assess the Receivers directly u/s 10 as an association of persons. In that view, the Tribunal cancelled the assessments made u/s
41, and directed the Income Tax Officer to make fresh assessment u/s 10 on the Receivers as an association of persons in respect of the
businesses carried on by them.
The following question was, thereupon, referred to this Court for opinion:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the assessment to be made on the Receivers u/s
10 of the Indian Income Tax Act as an association of persons?
Before proceeding to answer the question referred, it is necessary to ascertain the scope of Section 41, under which the Department had chosen to
assess the Receivers for all the years. Section 41, omitting the words which are not necessary for the present purpose, runs thus:
In the case of income, profits or gains chargeable under this Act which any receiver appointed by or under any order of a Court.... are entitled to
receive on behalf of any person, the tax shall be levied upon and recoverable from such receiver. in the like manner and to the same amount as it
would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person on whose behalf such income, profits or gains are receivable, and all the provisions of this
Act shall apply accordingly:
Provided that where any such income, profits or gains or any part thereof are not specifically receivable on behalf of any one person, or where the
individual shares of the persons on whose behalf they are receivable are indeterminate or unknown, the tax shall be levied recoverable at the
maximum rate, but, where such persons have no other personal income chargeable under this Act and none of them is an artificial juridical person,
as if such income, profits or gains or such part thereof were the total income of an association of persons:
[Second Proviso omitted.)
(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall prevent either the direct assessment of the person on whose behalf income, profits or gains therein
referred to are receivable, or the recovery from such person of the tax payable in respect of such income, profits or gains.
The section creates a vicarious liability. Where an estate is vested in or managed by another person (whom we shall hereafter refer as the
representative), that person could be assessed to tax, in respect of the income of the estate. The section is an enabling one, conferring a power on
the Department to assess the representative of a party in such cases. This is made clear by Sub-section (2) which states that provisions of Section
41 will not prevent the alternative course of assessing directly the person, on whose behalf the income is received. Thus, so far as the beneficial
owner of the estate is concerned, there can, at the option of the Department, be a direct assessment of income under the appropriate heads of the
legal owner or the representative can be assessed, the beneficial owner being indirectly assessed through such person. In either case the
assessment is in substance against the beneficial owner. It would, therefore, follow that, where the Department proceeds to take advantage of the
provisions of Section 41 and assesses the representative, the measure of the representative''s liability would be the, same, as if the beneficiaxies
fipneemed ''had received the amount. A case, where the beneficiary is a single person, would present no difficulty, for the assessment of the
representative would be the same as that of the beneficiary. But, where there are several beneficiaries, the assessment will depend upon the fact,
whether the interest of the beneficiaries is distinct or at least determinable. In that case, the measure of liability of the representative would be that
of each one of the beneficiaries. The assessment will have to be made in as many units as there are shares in proportion to the extent of shares held
by each beneficiary. As the beneficiaries would, if separately assessed have to pay tax only at the rate relative to their share of income (if the share
of the income is less than the taxable limit, there would be an exemption from tax), the representative, proceeded against u/s 41, will have the same
liability if, however, the shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate, the entire income received by the representative would be taxed at the
maximum rate, as prescribed by the First Proviso to Section 41(1). As recourse to Section 41 is only optional with the Department, the
Department could directly assess the beneficiaries. But, where the income received by the representative is from a business concern, a direct
assessment could not be made, uuless the business is carried on by the beneficiaries by their own volition, as, otherwise, they could not be said to
constitute a firm or an association of persons.
In Saifudin Alimohamed v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1953) 25 ITR 257, a Mohammadan carrying-on business died, leaving behind him
two minor daughters. The Court appointed two guardians for the minors, and the former were authorised to continue to carry on the business. It
was held that it was open to the Department to assess the income of the guardians u/s 10, on the basis that the business was carried on by the
guardians in their own right, pursuant to the order of the Court; but tha.., if the Department elected to proceed against the guardians in their
representative character u/s 40, they could not be assessed as an association of persons, but that the share of each minor should be assessed
separately through her guardian. The same principle would apply to a case u/s 41. Thus, where a Receiver or Receivers carried on business on
behalf of certain beneficiaries or persons entitled to it under the directions from Court, the parties who have beneficial interest in the business would
not constitute an association of persons, because the essential element of a volition to carry on the business jointly would be absent; a fortiori in a
case where there are minors. In all such cases, the Department, in order to assess the profits as a whole, could assess the Receivers as carrying on
business in their own right under orders of Court. But, where the assessment is not made on that footing, but the provisions of Section 41 are
applied, and the Receivers are assessed not as principals concerned in the business, but as a representative of the beneficiaries, tax could be
assessed and levied on the Recivers only on the footing that each of the beneficial owners was assessed separately (i.e. in a case where shares are
determinate) in regard to his or her share. In the present case, the Income Tax Department elected to assess the beneficiaries indirectly through
their representatives, the Receivers.
The question, then, is whether it would be open to the Appellate Tribunal to change the mode of assessment so as to make it a direct one of
the Receivers as principal parties to the assessment. In regard to that matter, different principles would apply to the assessment year 1939-40 and
the years 1941-42 to 1946-47.
Taking the Assessment year 1939-40, the assessment was made on a Hindu undivided family, but the tax was computed on the footing that the
income belonged to the two widows, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi, half and half at the rates applicable to their respective income. The proper
mode of assessment for that year was ultimately decided by the Appellate Tribunal on 28th January, 1942. The order of the Tribunal, read in the
light of its rectification contained in che order, dated 11 th February, 1946, finally upheld the assessment u/s 41--indeed there was no controversy
about it--and declared that the assessment should be made in 3 shares, namely, Lakshmi Achi, Nachiar Achi and Umayal Achi. What was left to
be determined was the actual division of the total income between the three units. That order having become final u/s 33(6), it would be no longer
open either to the Department now to contend that the basis of assessment should change or for the Receivers to say that the assessment should be
distributed into more than three shares. We, therefore, consider that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct rc-assessment of the income u/s 10
directly on the Receivers for the year 1939-40.
As regards the assessment years 1941-42 to 1946-47, the Officers of the Income Tax Department had the undoubted option to assess the
beneficiaries directly or the Receivers u/s 41. They had also the further option to assess the Receivers directly u/s 10 in regard to the businesses. In
the former case, they could assess the entire income from the estate, namely, its income under all heads, including the income earned in the
businesses conducted by the Receivers. In the latter case, the Receivers could be assessed only on the income earned from the businesses, and
that could not include the income from the other heads, for then it would be a hybrid assessment partly direct and partly indirect. The order of the
Tribunal does not, however, advert to this aspect of the matter. Recourse to Section 10, at the present stage, would mean a splitting up of the
assessment, the assessment u/s 41 being retained in regard to other heads of income, while in regard to the business income it would be on a
wholly different assessee, namely, the Receivers in their personal capacity. Whether such a course is permissible, is doubtful. Even if it is
permissible, whether it could be allowed in the circumstances of the case, has to be considered. The Department had made its choice as to the
mode of assessment; even if that was found to be ultimately detrimental to the revenue, they could have filed an appeal against the order of the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner by seeking to assess the Receivers u/s 10. This'' however, was not done. It must, therefore, be taken that the
Department was satisfied with the assessment being made u/s 41. Would it be open to. the Tribunal under those circumstances to take up the
matter suo moto?
Mr. Rama Rao Sahib, the learned Counsel for the Department, urged that, as the Appellate Tribunal had all the powers of Officers of the
Department, it was open to them to change the mode of assessment. The learned Counsel contended that, as the question, whether the Receivers
were to be assessed as persons carrying on-the businesses or whether they were to be assessed vicariously by resorting to the provisions of
Section 41, was a fundamental thing to be decided in respect of the assessment, the Appellate Tribunal was well within its rights to direct the
assessment to be done in such manner. The learned Counsel, however, conceded that it would not be open to the Tribunal, in the absence of an
appeal by the Department, to change the mode of assessment, so as to enhance the tax liability. But he contended that a mere order of remand
giving directions to change the mode of assessment would not amount to enhancement of tax liability, though, as a result thereof, the final order of
the assessing authority enhanced the tax liability.
A remand by the Appellate Tribunal might, some times, be intended to the benefit of the assessee, though ultimately the actual assessment
might be higher than before. In such cases, the higher assessment might be said to be the incidental result of an order of remand which was prima
facie intended for the benefit of the appellant-assessee. An instance of that kind is the case reported in Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd.,
Palladam Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, . But there might be cases where the remand will directly lead to an enhanced tax. The
present case affords an example of such cases.
The remand which was directed by the Appellate Tribunal was intended to assess the Receivers u/s 1 o. There could be no doubt that such am
assessment would enhance the tax liability. Taking, for example, the assessment for the year 1941-42, the Income Tax Officer assessed the income
in two shares, namely, that of Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi, and the tax liability was calculated Qua that basis. The assessee''s case was that
more persons were entitled to the property im determinate shares, and that, therefore, the assessment should be apportioned according to the
shares. If the income from the business is to be assessed u/s 10 on the Receivers, the shares would be amalgamated and assessed as the profits of
the Receivers at a higher rate and presumably attracting a higher amount by way of super-tax as well.
The question that arises, is, whether in the absence of an appeal by the Department the Tribunal would have power to make the position of an
appellant worse than what it was before he filed the appeal. In other words tPie question is whether the Tribunal can dispose of an appeal by
directing an assessment in such a manner that it would inevitably result in the enhancement of the tax liability. It is necessary, in this connection, to
refer briefly to the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act.
It is a fundamental principle that no litigant has an inherent right of appeal against a judicial order, unless such right is given by a statute. It is an
equally settled principle that, where the whole or part of an order has not been appealed against, it would be final; and the appellate authority, in
case there is an appeal against a part of an order, would have no jurisdiction in the absence of statutory provision to interfere with the other part
which does not form the subject of the appeal. Where a statute confers a right to appeal to an appellate authority, its powers and functions are
limited by the terms of that statute.
Section 30 gives a right of appeal only to the assessee against an order of assessment by an Income Tax Officer; the Department has no right
to appeal against the order of the Income Tax Officer, even if it were prejudical to the revenue. That presumably is for the reason that the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner being an officer of the Department would be vigilant in protecting the interests of the revenue, provided a power
is given to him to enhance the tax in an appeal by the assessee. Section 33-B enables the Commissioner to suo moto revise an order of assessment
which is prejudicial to the revenue. Section 31(3) which enumerates the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, says:
In disposing of an appeal the Appellate Assistant Comissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, (a) confirm, reduce, enhance or annul
the assessment or (b) set aside the assessment a nd direct the Income Tax OIKcer to make a fresh assessment after making such further enquiry as
the Income Tax Officer thinks fit or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may direct, and the Income Tax Officer shall thereupon proceed to
make such fresh assessment and determine where necessary the amount of tax payable on the basis of such fresh assessment.
(The rest of the section is omitted as unnecessary).
Thus, the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not confined to the subject-matter of appeal by the assessee. It is much wider. He
might examine all matters and dispose of the appeal, even to the prejudice of the assessee by himself enhancing the tax or remanding the case to
the Income Tax Officer, with a view to increase the tax liability. But, when the matter comes before a judicial Tribunal, by way of appeal, the same
principle cannot apply. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal should, in the absence of express words in the statute, be governed by the
subject-matter of the appeal. Section 33 declares that there would be a right of appeal against an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
both to the assessee as well as to the Department. Section 33(4), which relates to the powers of the Tribunal, runs:
The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, and shall
communicate any such orders to the assessee and to the Commissioner.
Section 33(4) unlike Section 31(3), does not vest any power in the Appellate Tribunal to enhance the tax except when there is an appeal by
the Department. Where the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is detrimental to the revenue, the Department could itself appeal to
the Tribunal u/s 33(3). In the absence of such appeal, the Appellate Tribunal could only deal with the actual subject-matter before it, namely, the
appeal of the assessee.
Rules have been framed under provisions of Section 5-A (8) regulating the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. Rule 12 states that an
appellant shall not except by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, but that
the Tribunal should not be confined to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal in disposing of the matter. This power of the Tribunal to
rest its order on a ground, not taken in the memorandum of appeal, is subject to the limitation that it should, before doing so, give sufficient
opportunity to the party that may be affected for being heard on that ground. Rule 27 states:
The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on any of the grounds decided
against him.
Rule 28, which confers powers of remand, runs:
Where the Tribunal is of opinion that the case should be remanded, it may remand it to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Income Tax
Officer, with such directions as the Tribunal may think fit.
The aforesaid rules, including the power to remand, would be governed by the provisions of Section 33(4), and, therefore, the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal would be circumscribed by the subject-matter of the appeal--the subject-matter of the appeal being that contained in the original
grounds of appeal, together with such other grounds as may be raised by the assessee by leave of the Tribunal. As the right of the respondent is
only to support the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on other grounds, it would follow that the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to
pass an order, so as to permit a ground to be raised by the respondent which if allowed, would make the position of the appellant worse than what
it was before. It would however be open to the Appellate Tribunal to permit a ground of appeal by an appellant, so as to enable him to obtain the
same or lesser relief; but it would have no power to expand the appeal, so as to benefit the respondent. The distinction is pointed out in New India
Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City, . In that case, the assessee, a life insurance
Company, carried on business partly in what was then in the British India, and partly in the Indian States. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner,
in an appeal from the order of the Income Tax Officer, held that the income from the policies in the Indian States could not be taxed in British
India. There was an appeal by the Department to the Tribunal on the ground that the income from the policies effected in the States should be
taken as having accrued in India. But when the case was heard by the Tribunal the Department urged, as an alternative ground, that, although the
policies were effected outside the British India, a portion of the process for earning the income had taken place in the British India, and, therefore,
there should be allocation of the profits, and that portion thereof referable to the work done in India should be rendered liable to tax. The Tribunal
accepted the alternative case, and remanded the case, directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the question of apportionment.
It was held that the Appellate Tribunal had power to give leave to the appellant to raise the question of apportionment, and that it was within its
competence to reverse the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on the ground that the liability to tax should be determined, after
deciding the question whether the income earned could be apportioned. It will be noticed that, in that case, the Appellate Tribunal was concerned
only with the question whether the relief could be given to an appellant on a ground not taken by him. The interference was well within the subject-
matter of appeal, the relief granted being less than what the grounds of appeal justified. Dealing with Section 33(4) the learned Judges observed at
page 856:
The expression ""thereon"" has come in for considerable judicial comment and observation, and the authorities lay down that the power of the
Tribunal is confined to dealing with the subject-matter of the appeal and the subject-matter of the appeal is constituted by the grounds of appeal
preferred by the appellant. This subject-matter cannot be expanded even by the appellant unless leave is granted to him to do so by the Appellate
Tribunal. The subject-matter can certainly not be expanded by the respondent, as already pointed out, if he has not either appealed or cross-
objected.
Recently, we had occasion to consider a similar question in B.C. No. 75 of 1957. In that case, an assessee was having a dual capacity (1) as
the sole surviving member of a Hindu undivided family, and (2) as an individual. He was assessed as an indi-. vidual in respect of certain foreign
profits received in India. The assessee objected to the assessment on the ground that the profits being received by the Hindu undivided family, they
could not be included in the individual assessment. He also contested the position that the remittances were received during the year of account.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the legality of the inclusion in the assessment of the individual the income of the family. He, however,
held that the remittances of foreign profits were not received during the year of account. The Department filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The only
point taken by the Department related to the question of remittance of the foreign profits. There was no objection on the part of the Department
that the assessment should be made separately on the assessee in regard to the two distinct capacities he possessed, namely, that of an individual
and that of the sole surviving member of the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal did not decide the question raised in the appeal, namely, whether
the monies were received in the year of account. It held that the Income Tax Officer committed a fundamental mistake in clubbing the assessment
of the individual with the Hindu undivided family, and remitted the case to enable the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment on the family
and the individual separately. We held that the Tribunal would have no power to travel outside the subject-matter in the controversy in the appeal
and decide the appeal in favour of the appellant on a ground which was not the subject-matter of dispute before it.
In THE MOTOR UNION INSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, BOMBAY., , it was held that it was not
open to the Tribunal itself to raise a ground or permit the party, who had not raised a ground, which would work adversely to the appellant.
Referring To Rule 21, the learned Judges held that, while it recognised the principle that the judgment of the lower Court could be supported on
any ground, not raised in the memorandum of appeal, it could not permit the Tribunal to suggest another mode of assessment altogether. The
question again came up for consideration in THE MOTOR UNION INSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax,
BOMBAY., . It was held that the Appellate Tribunal could only decide on the basis of the grounds of appeal raised or permitted to be raised, but
that it was not open to the Tribunal itself to raise a ground or permit a party who has not appealed to raise a ground which would work adversely
to the appellant. In that case, the question related to the extent to which loss could be allowed in favour of the assessee who was a dealer in
shares. In the previous year, the assessee had purchased the shares at Rs. 1,100 per share. In the following year, he sold them at Rs. 225 per
share. The controversy between the Department and the assessee was whether the loss allowed to the assessee should be calculated on the
difference between the cost price Rs. 1,100 and the sale price Rs. 225, or on the difference between the market value of the shares on the date of
the purchase, that is, Rs. 715, and the price Rs. 225 for which it was sold. The Officers of the Department held in favour of the latter contention. In
an appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal gave a finding that the proper method of calculating the loss was to ascertain the market value of the shares
on the date on which the assessee treated them as his stock-in-trade and the sum for which it was sold. It was held that the market value of the
shares on the date on which it was brought in to the account of the assessee as part of stock-in-trade was Rs. 524. The result of the finding of the
Appellate Tribunal was that not merely the asscssce''s appeal stood rejected, but there was a finding making the position of the assessee worse, in
that he was held entitled only to loss calculated at a difference between Rs. 524-6-0 and Rs. 225. It was held that the Tribunal could not have
directed the Income Tax Officer to assess the assessee on the basis of the price of the share of Rs. 524-6-0, that what it could not do directly it
could not do indirectly either, and that, therefore, it had no power to give a finding that the price of the share was only Rs. 524 for the purpose qf
directing the Income Tax Officer to re-assess the assessee on the basis of that price.
A power to remand is not expressly given by Section 33(4). But such power is implicit in the words "" pass such orders thereon "". Rule 28
confers the power of remand upon the Tribunal. On a reading of Section 33(1), together with Rules 9, 12 and 2 7, it would be clear that the power
of remand conferred on the Tribunal by Rule 28 is only incidental to its power to hear and dispose of the appeal. If in an appeal the Tribunal could
interfere in favour of the appellant, a remand could be made as incidental to that power, that is, for the purpose of giving relief to the appellant. But
a power of remand could not be exercised so as to exceed the jurisdiction of the Tribunal u/s 33(1). We have already pointed out that the Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to enhance assessment, except when there is an appeal by the Department itself. It would follow that it could not exercise the
power of remand for the purpose of enhancing the tax.
Mr. Rama Rao Sahib, the learned Counsel for the Department, placed considerable reliance on the decision in THE MOTOR UNION
INSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, BOMBAY., . In that case, the assessee realised a profit of Rs. 13,197. The
Income Tax Officer treated a sum of Rs. 3,800 under the head of income from the business. The Appellate Assistan t Commissioner upheld the
order of the Income Tax Officer in regard to the capital receipt, and reduced the assessment to Rs. 2,800. The assessee filed an appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal, contesting the propriety of the assessment of even that sum of Rs. 2,800. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Appellate
Assistan tCommisioner. Onremand, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held thatboth sums of Rs. 9,397 and Rs. 3,800 were assessable to tax
as income from the business, that is, making the position of the assessee worse than what it was before he appealed to the Tribunal. A Bench of
this Court, of which one of us (Rajagopalan, J.), was a party, held that the entire sum of Rs. 13,197 was a capital receipt, and it was, therefore,
exempt from tax. But, incidentally, while considering the question of powers of the Appellate Tribunal, the learned Judges held that, even though no
appeal was preferred by the Commissioner in respect of the portion of the order of assessment of the Income Tax Officer which contained an
adverse decision against the Department, the matter having been remanded, it would be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to deal with
the whole of the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer, even to enhance the assessment, as u/s 31 there was no distinction between the case
where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dealing with the subject-matter which was remanded and the appeal which was heard by him in
the first instance. As we have pointed out already, there may be cases where a remand has to be made for giving relief to the appellant himself. For
example, an assessee may attack the entire basis of the assessment. The Appellate Tribunal in order to give relief to the appellant, might direct a
remand. Once a remand is made, the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on remand, unless restricted by the order of the remand
itself, would be governed by the Provisions of Section 31. That section, conferring as it does unlimited powers of assessment on the Appellate
Assistant Commissioner, would enable him even to enhance the assessment. But such an enhancement could only be a fortuitous result of an order
which was intended for the benefit of the appellant. The decision of Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd., Palladam Vs. The Commissioner of
Income Tax, Madras, , belongs to that category of cases.
That principle cannot apply to a case, where a remand is intended for the benefit of the respondent, or where it would inevitably result in a
prejudice to the appellant. There can obviously be no power to remand in such a case. To recognise such a power would be to enable the
Appellate Tribunal to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, that is, enhance the liability.
In the present case, there is no doubt that the result of the remand would be only to enhance the tax, and it can never operate to the benefit of
the appellant. We are of opinion that the order of the Tribunal is onepassed without jurisdiction. The Tribunal has not yet decided the appeal
before it on the basis of the grounds raised therein. We are of opinion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct the assessment to be made on
the Receivers u/s 10 of the Indian Income Tax Act as an association of persons, and that it can only dispose of the appeal on the footing that there
has been a proper assessment of the Receivers u/s 41 of the Indian Income Tax Act. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the
negative, and in favour of the assessees. The assessees will be entitled to their costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 250.
This case having been set down this day for being mentioned in the presence of the aforesaid advocates, the Court made the following.