RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of the abovementioned four appeals. For the sake of reference, facts have been taken from IT Appeal No. 374 of 2005.
(2.) TRIBUNAL , Chandigarh Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 841/Chd/2000, for the asst. yr. 1997 -98, raising following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse as the Tribunal has not allowed the assessee to raise the additional ground which has been concluded in favour of the assessee in all preceding years ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the ratio of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249 : (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by not allowing the assessee to raise the additional issue before the Tribunal -
(3.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income as 'Nil' and declared income of Rs. 96,66,339 under return, the relevant part of which is extracted as under : "The company has received sales -tax subsidy in the form of sales -tax exemption granted by the Punjab State being directly linked to fixed capital investment, is in the nature of capital subsidy." It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the AO, while passing the order of assessment, did not deal with the issue granting the consequential relief as per note appended with the return. Against the order of assessment, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) [for short, 'the CIT(A)'], raising various other issues, which were decided against it in the order of assessment. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee carried the matter further in appeal to the Tribunal and raised the following additional ground : "That treating sales -tax subsidy in the sum of Rs. 1,84,82,903 as revenue receipt by the authorities below is highly unjustified inasmuch as such sales -tax subsidy received by the appellant was capital in nature and may kindly be so held by the Hon'ble Bench accordingly." The Tribunal did not permit raising of additional ground for the reason that omission of this ground from the original memo of appeal was not reasonable.;