Case Law Details
Case Name : M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2004-05 to 2009-10
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
In the case of JB Greaves (supra), which is the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, it has been held that the subject – matter of appeal before the Tribunal would be the grounds raised by the appellant before it. Rule 11 provides that the appellant shall not except by the leave of Tribunal, be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal.
But the Tribunal in deciding the appeal shall not be confined to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal and grounds taken by leave of the Tribunal. Rule 27 provides that even though, the respondent may not h...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
what do we understand by term mandatory law is the major question before apex court that is vital just because intent of legislature is reflected in a statute, if not followed , that is indeed violation of Art 265 of the constitution of india. that way basic structure of constitution is to be assessed.
Judging is more an art than a science!
In ITAT i would suggest first judicial member has to decide on the preliminary legal issues instead of account member taking on appealants for i see account member is invariably take a lot of time and try to lead the appellants to accept for refer back to AOs though referring back seems indeed some what hollow when aspects of law is to be decided, there is no point revert back to AO/ITO as legal aspects always on record before tribunal.
Most CAs are invariably not really qualified to handle basic legal issues that way hon SC rightly said in NTT Act that CAs are not qualified to handle interpretation,
fact is it is not CA or Advocates questions but it is the life and death of appelants, for any wrong interpretation of laws just turn a tax payer just a pauper, while the citizens need to be very carefully handled; else sooner or later people would lose faith on judiciary as such, that is most important than revenue to government, if people lose faith tax compliance would be a great casuality and governments would roll on every now and then, that is worst situsation for democracies!
Right.
When Question of law is raised that need to be allowed by hon tribunal, as referring back to AO or ITO is indeed meaningless or infructuous or miscarriage of justice, as there is no need of any verification on any facts by AO investigation . that way NTPC matter is rightly handled by Appex court.
Any jurisdictional bar by sections like 143(2) then very Notices fail under 143(2)(ii), when so hon Tribunal cannot refer back to AO/ITO is very clear.
Any bar of jurisdiction under relevant section is essentially mandatory means AO/ITO must first have his own check list before he issues Notices, if failed natirally his notices are void ab initio, as it is said none can go against public policy laid down by legislature is the crux.
Indeed here i read the above article and i wish all ITAT members be properly appraised of NTPC decision dated 12.04.1986 as mentioned in te article.
Hon tribunals need be given right handbooks on stare decis case laws as is valid on day else again ITAT members are bound to make mistakes that would unnecessarily affect taxpayers who are not criminals under any definition and so Art 265 talks about due process procedure.
if revenue is not able to handle load of work it would be most ideal outsource competent agencies like PwC or McKinsey/ or ICAi or CMA to handle issues of assessments and that way tax payers can be better served as also the government of the day is my considered view!