High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jaipur v. M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 48/2019 ·
Claim for amortization of mining land and leasehold land of Rs. 4,70,33,366 for AY 2015-16 raised during assessment without a revised return: ITAT erred in allowing depreciation under section 32 on an oral argument without any ground of appeal, leave under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, or opportunity to the Revenue.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
For AY 2015-16, Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. did not claim amortization of mining land and leasehold land (Rs. 4,70,33,366) in its original return or file a revised return, but raised the claim during scrutiny assessment. Both the AO (order dated 31.12.2017) and CIT(A) (order dated 23.03.2018) rejected the claim following Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323). Meanwhile, in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 (D.B. ITA No. 146/2016), the Rajasthan High Court decided the amortization issue in favour of the Revenue. Before the ITAT Jaipur, without raising any ground or seeking leave to raise an additional ground for depreciation, the assessee orally argued for depreciation under section 32, which the ITAT allowed by order dated 12.11.2018.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
Examining Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT ((1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)), the Division Bench held that while the Tribunal has power to permit a new question of law where all foundational facts are already on record, under the proviso to Rule 11 the Tribunal cannot rest its decision on any unpleaded ground unless the party affected (here, the Revenue) has had a sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground. Because the ITAT left the pleaded issue of amortization undecided and allowed section 32 depreciation on an oral submission without an additional ground, without foundational facts on record, and without giving the Revenue a reasonable opportunity to oppose, its order was unsustainable.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Allowed D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 48/2019 and answered the substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue.
4. OUTCOME
Revenue - Appeal allowed and substantial question of law answered in favour of the Revenue.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: when raising an alternative statutory claim before the ITAT (such as section 32 intangible/mining-rights depreciation in lieu of amortization), always file a written application for admission of an additional ground under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and demonstrate that all primary facts are already on record as required by NTPC.
Source and verification
7-page official High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan judgment PDF (20250403_RJHC020393762019.pdf).
Original PDF: 7 pages · SHA-256: b2eaa561e253b4ba254f31764c43124cdab51f80caa67b0987fb38ee42cc482a
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Applies sections 32, 35D(2) and 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for AY 2015-16. Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full primary judgment PDF read page-by-page and verified against the AKHB Google Drive repository. Comprehensive subsequent judicial treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.