9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 289 - AT - Income TaxAppellate authorities power to consider the claim not made in the return - Held that - Hon ble Apex Court in Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. 1977 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT wherein, it was held that the assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions, before the appellate authorities, but also entitled to raise additional claim before them and further appellate authorities have discretion to permit such additional claims. Thus, respectfully following the above precedents, remand the issue in dispute to the file of the AO to examine the claim of the assessee afresh and decide the same in accordance with law by considering the revised computation and give proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO
Issues:
1. Dispute over the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Rejection of revised computation filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings. 3. Claim of depreciation on the shop in earlier years and the revised return for the current year. 4. Request for additional evidence before ITAT. 5. Permission to add or alter grounds of appeal. 6. Validity of the order of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) and deletion of additions made. Issue 1: Dispute over the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) The appeal was filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13. The grounds of appeal included errors in upholding the impugned order, denial of tax liability, sustaining additions of short-term capital gains, and seeking permission to file additional evidence and alter grounds of appeal. The assessee requested the ITAT to set aside the issues in dispute to the AO for fresh decision based on revised computation. Issue 2: Rejection of revised computation The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that the AO wrongly rejected the revised computation filed during assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this rejection, stating that the appellant could not withdraw depreciation claimed on the shop in earlier years. The ITAT referred to a similar case and remanded the issue to the AO to examine the claim afresh and decide in accordance with the law, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Issue 3: Claim of depreciation and revised return The assessee claimed depreciation on the shop in earlier years and filed a revised return for the current year after the time limit had elapsed. The ITAT, following legal precedents, held that appellate authorities have the power to consider claims not made in the return. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh examination based on the revised computation, with proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Issue 4: Request for additional evidence The appellant sought leave and sanction of the ITAT to file additional evidence, if required, for proper prosecution of the case. The ITAT directed the assessee to fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and not take unnecessary adjournments, emphasizing the submission of all necessary documents and evidence. Issue 5: Permission to add or alter grounds of appeal The appellant sought leave to add to or alter any grounds of appeal at any time up to the final decision of the appeal. The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating a favorable outcome for the assessee based on the issues raised and the legal arguments presented. Issue 6: Validity of the order and deletion of additions The order of the AO as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was declared null and void ab initio, and the additions made were to be deleted. The ITAT directed the AO to examine the claim of the assessee afresh and decide in accordance with the law, following legal precedents and providing proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the decisions and directions given by the ITAT in each aspect of the case.
|
