Deepak Sibal JUDGMENT
Deepak Sibal, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short - the Act), which pertains to the Assessment Year 2007-08, is at the instance of the assessee impugning therein the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (for short - the Tribunal). The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i). Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Grounds of Appeal raised before the ITAT could not be entertained as it was not raised as additional grounds of appeal without seeking leave of the court even though the same was part of grounds of appeal filed before the ITAT by the Appellant?
(ii). Whether in facts and circumstances of the case order of the ITAT is contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of National Thermal v. CIT MANU/SC/1287/1997 : 229 ITR 383?"
2. The answer to either of the afore-quoted questions would answer the other.
3. For the Assessment Year in question, through order dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was assessed to tax, which order was challenged by the assessee through an appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana (for short - the Commissioner), which was partly allowed. This led to filing of cross-appeals before the Tribunal-one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee. In the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the Tribunal, the assessee raised an additional ground with regard to calculation of Minimum Alternate Tax to be carried forward to the subsequent year. According to the assessee, in the Assessment Order, the same had not been correctly calculated. As this ground was to challenge the above computation made in the assessment proceedings and had not been raised before the Commissioner, the Tribunal refused to adjudicate upon the same as according to the Tribunal prior leave of the Tribunal through an application in writing should have been obtained before raising the additional ground. An oral request made by the assessee to raise this additional ground was not considered enough. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any request in writing for admission of an additional ground in the appeal, the Revenue would be put to serious prejudice as it would have no opportunity to counter the request of the assessee in this regard. For arriving at the above conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Smt. Arundhati Balkrishna and others v. G.M. Singhvi, Income Tax Officer, Group Circle III-2, Ahmedabad and others MANU/GJ/0027/1974 : [1976] 103 ITR 763 (Guj), a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sahara India MANU/UP/4103/2011 : [2012] 347 ITR 331 (All) as also a judgment of this Court in Echo Shella v. Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/PH/1410/2006 : [2007] 293 ITR 234 (P&H).
4. Appeals to the Tribunal are preferred under Section 254(1) of the Act which provides that after hearing the contesting parties the Tribunal may pass such orders that it thinks fit. Section 254(1) of the Act, reads as under:-
"254(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit."
5. In the afore-quoted provision the usage of the words "pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit" gives very wide po........