9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 949 - HC - Income TaxAppeal against remand order of ITAT - Disallowance of loss - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in accepting the plea of the assessee and remanding the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer instead of remanding the matter to the CIT(A) whose order was challenged by the assessee? - held that - The impugned order of the Tribunal merely requires further opportunity to be given to the assessee for the reasons extracted above. We are of the view that since reasons mentioned by the Tribunal for remand are plausible reasons, no interference is called for at this stage.
Issues:
1. Correctness of remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer instead of CIT(A). 2. Correctness of remanding the disallowance of loss to the Assessing Officer. 3. Correctness of the Assessing Officer's decision on the loss of Rs. 18,21,20,035. Issue 1: The Revenue filed an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the ITAT's order remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer instead of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not thoroughly examine the assessee's claim of loss due to the export of damaged wheat. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer had not considered all relevant facts and had made incorrect assumptions regarding the export of wheat. The Tribunal concluded that the matter needed to be re-adjudicated by the Assessing Officer based on the evidence on record. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision to remand the issue did not reflect on the merits of the dispute, and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the evidence presented by the assessee and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. Issue 2: The Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of the assessee regarding the loss suffered due to the export of damaged wheat, leading to an addition to the declared income. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. However, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the facts related to the loss claim. The Tribunal pointed out various flaws in the Assessing Officer's reasoning, such as incorrect assumptions and lack of consideration of crucial evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The Tribunal clarified that the remand was not a reflection on the merits of the dispute but a procedural step to ensure a fair assessment based on all available evidence. Issue 3: The Assessing Officer had disallowed the loss of Rs. 18,21,20,035 claimed by the assessee, stating that the loss was not ascertained in the relevant financial year and thus not allowed in the assessment year. The Tribunal disagreed with the Assessing Officer's conclusion, highlighting that the Assessing Officer had failed to consider crucial evidence and had made incorrect assumptions regarding the export of wheat. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue based on the material and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the assessee to substantiate the loss claim and justified the remand to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence and facts in assessing the claims made by the assessee.
|
