ACA Commerce & Insurance Agents Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2217/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53211 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK PERIWAL; SANTOSH PATHAK ARS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Non compliance; Right to appeal
• Section: 142(1); 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI A BENC H BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.2217/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 M/S ACA COMMERCE & INSURANCE AGENTS PVT. LTD. B-7/5008, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI [PAN NO.: AAFCA0732M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI ALOK PERIWAL & SANTOSH PATHAK, ARS REVENUE BY MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA, DR DATE OF HEARING 16-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16-11-2011 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 4.5.2011 BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST AN ORDER DATED 01.03.2011 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, NEW DELH I, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PA SSED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, BY THE AO IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL, A RBITRARY, AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN NOT ENTERTAINING DOCUMEN TS FILED BEFORE HIM IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND AGAIN ST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL, ARBITRA RY, AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE:- A) UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS U/S 68 ` ` ` 2,88,75,267/-; B) UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS U/S 68 ` ` ` 18,09,556/- AND C) DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES @25% ` ` `6,06,527/- ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 2 2. FACTS IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` 1,00,858/- FILED ON 30TH OCTOBER, 2007 BY THE ASSES SEE, AFTER BEING PROCESSED ON 9.6.2008 U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED ON 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. IN RESPONSE TO TH E SAID NOTICE, NONE ATTENDED NOR THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED TO THE FOLLOWING NOTICES : S.NO. NOTICE U/S DATED HEARING FIXED FOR 1 143(2) 01.07.09 08.07.09 2. 131 28.08.09 08. 09.09 3. 143(2) 23.09.09 06.10.09 4. 131 21.10.09 28. 10.09 5. 142(1) 20.11.09 30.11.09 6. 142(1) 02.12.09 09.12.09 2.1 EVEN THE FOLLOWING REMINDERS DID NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE ASSESSEE: S.NO. LETTER DATED HEARING FIXED FOR 1 16.01.2009 28.01.2009 2 25.05.2009 15.06.2009 3 23.07.2009 04.08.2009 2.2 SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF T HE AFORESAID NOTICES OR REMINDERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] ISSUE D A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 20.11.2009 PROPOSING TO MAKE ADDI TIONS OF ` `1 LAC AND ` `3,05,16,282/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT BESIDES DISALLOWIN G 25% OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF ` 24,26,109/-. NONE RESPONDED TO THIS NOTICE ALSO. IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2009, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER SENT THROUGH SPEED POST ON 5TH DECEMBER , 2009 THAT NO FRESH CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR WHILE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF CREDITORS WERE ` ` 2,88,75,268/-. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED ACCO UNT STATEMENT OF EXPENSES EXCEEDING ` ` 50,000/- ,CONFIRMATION OF M/S SURYA ENTERPRISES AN D BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. S INCE THE SAID LETTER WAS NOT SIGNED BY ANY DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR A CCOUNTANT NOR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED, THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD ADDED ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 3 UNSECURED LOANS OF ` 18,09,556/- AND UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS OF ` ` 288,75,267/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHILE RELYING UPON A NUMBER OF DECISI ONS BESIDES DISALLOWANCE 25% OF THE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO ` ` 606,527/-. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO . 2(C) RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES BUT FILED FRESH EVIDENCE I N RELATION TO AMOUNTS ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THESE EVIDENCES WE RE FORWARDED TO THE AO. VIDE LETTER DATED 11.1.2011, THE AO OBJECTED TO THE ADM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTINUALLY DID NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE NOTICES OR REMINDERS ISSUED BY HIM. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LEARNED AR MERELY PLEADED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME-T AX RULES, 1962 AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F M/S MOSER BAER INDIA LTD. & ORS. VS. ADDL. CIT (DEL.) 17DTR(DEL.)98 DECLINED T O ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DUE TO PERSISTENT NON COMPLIANCE OF THE VA RIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE REFERRI NG TO DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN OASIS HOSPITALITIES (P) LTD., IN I.T.A. NO.2093 OF 2010 UPHELD THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND REJECTED GROUND NOS.2(A) AND 2(B) IN THE APPEAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A).THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO ADM IT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. AR DID NOT ADDUCE ANY R EASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. AFTER DISCUSSION , BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MATTER RELATING TO ADDITIONS U/S 68 OF THE ACT MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR READJUDICATION SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF ` `25,000/- WITHIN A WEEK OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD SUO MO TU APPEAR BEFORE THE AO ON 13TH MARCH, 2012 ALONG WITH RELEVANT ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE. ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO RIGHT SINCE 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 UNTIL DECEMBER, 2009 NOR ADDUCED ANY REASONS FOR SUCH NON-COMPLIANCE . THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT HE WAS NOT ENTERTAINED ON 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECORDS. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE VARIOUS CREDITOR S OR GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS BEFORE THE AO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, ESTABLISHING CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE VARIOUS CREDITORS AND GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE AMOUNT OF ` 18,09,556/- AND ` 2,88,75,267/- WAS ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT . THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION WHILE REFUSING TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO AMOUNTS ADDED U/ S 68 OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THEIR CASE U NDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN RULE 46A(1) OF THE IT RULES,1962. WE FI ND FROM THE PAPER BOOK THAT DOCUMENTS PLACED AT SL. NOS. 3 TO 9[PAGE 1 TO 61 OF THE PB] WERE FILED ONLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOT THE AO. IN THE LIGHT OF THES E FACTS, BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER , WE MAY HAVE A LOOK AT THE RELEVANT RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962, WHICH READS AS UNDER: (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER TH AN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY:-- (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMI T EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED;OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVAN T TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO A DDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 5 (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1 ) UNLESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3)THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OR, AS THE CA SE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HA S BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY- (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROS S-EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITN ESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMI NATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTH ER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETH ER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271. ' 5.1. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-R. (1) OF R ULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 ,INTER ALIA,FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE IN TERMS OF SUB-RULE (4) OF THE SAID RULE .IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE DOCUMENT S PLACED AT SR. NO. 3 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK WERE ADMITTEDLY FILED BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. INDISPUTABLY, THOUGH THE AO PROVIDED SEVERAL OPPOR TUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFOR E HIM. SINCE THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS ARE GERMANE TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT ,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN I GNORING THESE DOCUMENTS. THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) IN TERMS OF RULE 46A TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE, ENTAILS AN ELEMENT OF DISCRETION WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXERC ISED IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER. THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE ARE NOT ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE LOW ER AUTHORITIES OWING TO LACK OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BUT ALSO IN SITUATIONS WHER E THE FRESH EVIDENCE WOULD ENABLE THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. OF ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 6 COURSE, THE POWER IS TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY A ND FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND FROM THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAID FRESH EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED, SEEKS TO C LEAR THE OBSCURITY, THEREBY LEADING TO CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND, IN OU R VIEW, THE ADMISSION OF THE SAME IS VERY MUCH WITHIN THE REALM OF THE EXPRESSIO N 'FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE' MENTIONED IN RULE 46A OF THE I.T.RULES,1962. THEREFORE, THE SAID EVIDENCE DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANT IAL JUSTICE SO AS TO REMOVE THE OBSCURITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE VACATE THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS PLACED AT SL. NO. 3 TO 9 IN TH E PAPER BOOK AND THEREAFTER, DISPOSE OF THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTE R ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF ` 25,000/- TO THE REVENUE. IT MAY BE CLARIFIED THAT THE AO IS FREE TO UNDERTAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRES, IF FOUND NECESSARY AND THEREAFTER, MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS AS H E DEEMS PROPER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY COST OF ` 25,000/- TO THE REVENUE WITHIN A WEEK OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND FURNISH A COPY OF CHALLAN .THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL SUO MOTU APPEAR BEFORE THE AO ON 13.3.2012 ALONG WITH AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPO SAL OF THE MATTER. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUND NOS. 2 & 3(A)/(B) RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED HEREINBEFORE. 6. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1, NO SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE US NOR ANY REASONS WERE ADDUCED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO WHILE THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3(C) WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR DID NOT EVEN A MAKE WHISPER BEFORE US ON THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE SAID GROUND NO. 3(C).IF THERE IS NO DECISION OF THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR THE ISSUE WAS NOT AGITATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STILL AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY IN NOT GRANTING SUCH RELIEF TO HIM. HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN CIT VS. KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PRIVATE LTD.,74 ITR 254(GUJ) HELD THAT T HE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ENTITLED TO ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 7 ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO AGITATE AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NO T RAISED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THERE IS NO DECISION OF SUCH AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE IN THE M EMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND SEEKS TO AGITATE IT. SIMILARLY IN SMT. ARUDHANTI BA LKRISHNA VS. ITO,103 ITR 763(GUJ), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUESTION THE DECISION OF THE OFFICER ON A POINT IN AN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS NOT RAISED OR DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE ASSISTAN T COMMISSIONER. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN HUKAMCHAND & MANNALAL & CO.,126 I TR 251(MP), UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD. VS. CIT,141 ITR 326(BOM.), CIT VS. ANAND PRASAD [1981] 128 ITR 388 (DELHI) AND CIT VS. CELLULOSE PRODUCTS OF INDI A LTD. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (GUJ) [FB] . IN CIT V. BEGUM NOOR BANU ALLADIN [19 93] 204 ITR 166 (AP- FULL BENCH), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COUR T HAVE HELD THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RESTRICTED TO SUBJE CT-MATTER OF DISPUTE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEIR LORDSHIPS AFTER ANALYZIN G VARIOUS DECISIONS HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEA L BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND NECESSARILY IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE APPELLATE ASSISTAN T COMMISSIONER. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO TABOO AGAINST RAISING A NEW GROUND OR A NEW PLEA TOUCHING THE SAME SUBJECT-MATTER. IF THE ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM T AKING A NEW GROUND UNRELATED TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTAN T COMMISSIONER, HE CANNOT AVAIL OF RULE 11 AND OBTAIN LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL T O RAISE SUCH GROUND FOR THE FIRST TIME. THIS RULE MUST BE READ SUBSERVIENT TO THE PRO VISION IN THE ACT PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHT OF APPEAL. SO READ, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT COULD BE PERMITTED TO BE RAISED UNDER RULE 11 IS THE ONE THA T SHOULD RELATE TO THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF THE APPEAL WHICH, IN TURN, IS LINKED TO T HE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EVEN FROM THE STAND POINT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES THERE IS A SALUTARY PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING A TAXING STATUTE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A FINALITY TO THE PROCEEDINGS SO THAT AN ELEMENT OF CERTAINTY COULD BE USHERED IN AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE INTERESTS OF BOTH SIDES. THE ASSESSMENTS NEED NOT BE THROWN TO CONTEST THROUGHOUT THE STAGES OF APPEAL, REVISION AND ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 8 REFERENCE. THERE IS A FALLACY IN THINKING THAT, IN REALITY THERE IS NO LIS BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THAT THE TRIBUNAL S HOULD SET UPON ITSELF THE TASK OF RECOMPUTING THE TAX LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETH ER THE GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR EVEN BEFORE IT. HONBLE FULL BENCH ALSO OBSERVED THAT A DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TAKES ITS COL OUR FROM THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND WHILE APPLYING TH E DECISION TO A LATER CASE, THE COURTS MUST CAREFULLY TRY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE PRI NCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IT IS NOT PROPER TO P ICK OUT WORDS OR SENTENCES FROM THE JUDGMENT DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT. IN CIT V. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE LTD. [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT WAS ONLY HIGHLIGHTING THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER BUT NOT THE TRIBUNAL. IN CIT V. MAHALAKSHMI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE LAID DOWN A PROPOSITION THAT ANY QUESTION, WHETHER IT RELATES TO THE SAME SUBJECT-MATTER OR NOT, CAN BE R AISED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL CAN GRANT RELIEF ON AN IT EM OF INCOME WHICH WAS NEVER DISPUTED EARLIER, HONBLE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APP EAL BEFORE US NOR MADE ANY WHISPER IN RELATION TO ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 (C). SINCE NO REASONS HAVE BEEN ADDUCED BEFORE US FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH VARI OUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO WHILE GROUND NO.2(C) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT PRESSED, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REJECT BOTH THESE GROUNDS . 7. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED BUT F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA N O.2217 /DEL./2011 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. M/S ACA COMMERCE & INSURANCE AGENTS PVT. LTD, B- 7/5008, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-70. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT(A)-IV, NEW DELHI. 4. CIT CONCERNED. 5. DR, ITAT,A BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR