9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipts on the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not passing a speaking order in relation to the contention of the appellant regarding the issue of capital receipt on the facts and circumstance of the case ? 3, Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that consent cannot confer jurisdiction and a mere admission cannot be held against the appellant ?" as questions that arise from out of the order dated July 21, 2008, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in I. T. A. No. 856/ Bang/2008. 2. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee had filed its return of income and had, amongst others, offered an income of Rs.11,15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the return as filed, but having added back certain deductions which were not allowable, the ground cannot be sustained and, therefore, dismissed the appeal on this aspect. 6. The assessee appealed further to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that the assessing authority had in no way altered or disallowed the claim of the assessee in so far as it mentioned in the return of income relating to capital gain and if the version of the assessee in terms of its return had been accepted and if the assessing authority had finalized the same, the assessee cannot make a grievance out of such a situation and seek for relief in appeal, etc., and opined that the assessee's contention was not tenable and to be rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submits that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) is inapt ; that in fact the decision was more favourable to the assessee than to the Revenue and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained for the view that the Tribunal has on the strength of this decision of the Supreme Court. 10. On the other hand, Sri Shankar has placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Bhandari Metals and Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2004] 136 STC 292 (Karn), which in turn relied upon an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Narsepalli Oil Mills v. State of Mysore [1973 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see disclosed a capital gain amount of Rs. 11,15,44,005. If at all a reservation or a caveat was put by the assessee, it was in the form of a foot- note. We may at once make it clear that a footnote cannot guide or control a return which is filed by an assessee. A footnote if at all can be for the pur- pose of amplification or for further reference or any such thing, but not to indicate a stand contrary to the main thing. 13. Be that as it may, when the assessee filed its return of income, which is a statutory requirement, in fact statutory duty on the part of the assessee having income, the assessee is expected to make whole and true disclosure and when the assessee indicates that a particular amount as capital gain amount, but in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
