• Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.


ITAT issues guidelines for stay of demand.

Main Menu

Decision of Mitsui and Company

Started by brett_lee38, October 13, 2010, 01:42:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


In this case the revenue has challanged that the ITAT has exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the question of jurisdiction of 147 for the first time before it. The High Court has remitted the matter back to the file of ITAT on this ground alone. The fact of the matter is that the assessee has raised question of jurisdiction of 147 before the ITAT. Department,  before the ITAT pleaded that its a new plea can not be raised for the first time before the ITAT. ITAT records that the genral ground of appeal before the CIT(A) covers the question of jurisdiction as well. Now my question is that when all facts are on record then what is wrong in taking the question of jurisdiction for the first time before the ITAT. No body from the side of assessee has adressed their lordships about the decision of NTPC and argued that the legal ground can be raised for the first time before the High Court as well. In the case of Dilip Sherof the Counsel for the assessee first time took the ground of satisfaction before the Supreme Court. Interesting  


There are many such precedents. In all such cases , ITAT have taken a view that a new ground/legal ground can be taken for the first time before ITAT if necessary information is on the record and no investigation is required. Further , principle of natural justice also supports this logic.


yes i know that there are so many decision even special bench is there in the case of DHL operators 108 TTJ but the question is why High Court has sent the matter back to the file of ITAT when all the facts were on record and ITAT has not done any injustice


apart from ntpc judgement of supreme court, on facts ratio of 113 I T R  22 gujarat high court in p.v. doshi can also

be relied upon. reopening is granted jurisdiction on fulfillment of pre requisite  statutory conditions and not by

consent of anyone. anytime this legal plea is maintanable  without ony hurdle of latches if statutorily jurisdictional

pre conditions remain unfulfilled..