9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1125 - HC - Income TaxAddition in respect of retention money - assessee has neither claimed retention money in the return of income nor filed any revised return - Held that - Issue covered against the Revenue by virtue of the judgment of this Court in the case of ASSOCIATED CABLES P. LIMITED. 2006 (8) TMI 135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Allowability of foreseeable loss - ITAT restoring the matter back to the file of the AO - Held that - Referring to main objection of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the assessee had raised such a claim without the same being part of the return filed and without the assessee having filed a revised return. The Tribunal in this context, refereed to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P Ltd reported in 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court had taken a view that the Appellate Authorities have power to consider the claim even though not made in the return. This question, therefore, is not required to be entertained. Additional depreciation - Held that - CIT (Appeals) had rejected the assessee s claim on the ground that the same did not pertain to the year under consideration. If that be so, the Tribunal should have given its opinion whether the CIT (Appeals) was correct in coming to such a conclusion. Mere remand to CIT (Appeals) for fresh consideration would be futile. In so far as this question is concerned, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal may be requested to decide the ground of the assessee in his appeal.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the Tribunal's order remanding the question of the assessee's claim of foreseeable loss. 2. Objection to the Tribunal's order upholding the deletion of addition in respect of retention money. 3. Challenge to the Tribunal's order remanding the claim of additional depreciation. Analysis: 1. The first issue concerns the objection raised by the Revenue against the Tribunal's decision to remand the question of the assessee's claim of foreseeable loss. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the entire claim, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed a partial relief of Rs. 34.83 lakhs. The Tribunal, after considering appeals from both sides, referred the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Revenue argued that the claim was not part of the filed return and no revised return was submitted. However, the Tribunal relied on a previous judgment that allowed Appellate Authorities to consider claims not made in the return. Consequently, the Court decided not to entertain this question further. 2. The second issue relates to the objection raised by the Revenue regarding the deletion of the addition in respect of retention money. The Revenue's objection was based on the fact that the assessee did not claim retention money in the return of income or file any revised return. However, the Court noted that this issue was covered against the Revenue by a previous judgment. Therefore, this question did not require further consideration. 3. The final issue involves the assessee's claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1.42 crores. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim as it was not included in the return and no revised return was filed. The CIT (Appeals) held that the claim did not pertain to the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT (Appeals) for fresh consideration. However, upon reviewing the Tribunal's order, the Court observed inconsistencies in the observations made. The Court concluded that the Tribunal should have provided its opinion on whether the CIT (Appeals) was correct in rejecting the claim. Therefore, the Court reversed the remand by the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide the ground of the assessee's appeal independently on this limited issue. In conclusion, the Court allowed the Revenue's appeal in part, reversed the remand of the issue, and placed the assessee's appeal back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the claim of additional depreciation. The Court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and instructed the Tribunal to decide the question independently.
|
