9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd and marked as "X" by consent. Amendment may be carried out forthwith and verification is dispensed with. 2 The Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the entire matter of disallowance of Rs.28,69,951/to the file of the A.O. to be decided afresh when the Assessee had withdrawn its appeal filed before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT (A) upholding disallowance of bad debts to the extent of Rs.14,96,064/and this disallowance had therefore become final. 3 By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 4 The Assessee had made a claim on account of bad debts in the amount of Rs.28, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax in the alternative ought to have allowed the deduction under the head bad debts of Rs.14,96,064/." 6 The appeal filed by the Assessee was, however, barred by limitation, there being a delay of 551 days. During the course of the hearing before the Tribunal, the Assessee withdrew its appeal, but sought to press in aid the provisions of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for raising the following grounds:" 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in partly confirming the business loss amounting to Rs.14,96,064/; 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Appellant craves to raise an alternative ground, that the CIT(A) ought to have alternatively allowed the deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) Hence, the Assessee could have supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the extent to which the Appellate Authority had allowed the claim of the Assessee in the amount of Rs.13.73 lacs though on any ground which was decided against the Assessee; (vi) However, since the Assessee has withdrawn its appeal it could not assail the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the extent of the disallowance of Rs.14.96 lacs by taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 27. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee submits that the appeal which was filed by the Assessee was barred by limitation. Hence, the Assessee bonafide proceeded to withdraw the appeal under legal advise to the effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs.14.96 lacs. The Assessee's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was withdrawn, perhaps because it was barred by limitation. Once the appeal was withdrawn, it was only open to the Assessee to support the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on any of the grounds decided against him. Hence, while the Assessee would support the order, that would mean that the Assessee would be entitled to urge that the deletion of the disallowance to the extent of Rs.13.73 lacs by the CIT(A) was correct and proper. The Assessee, however, would not be entitled to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Rule 27 in regard to that part of the order of the CIT(A) which, upon consideration of the evidence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
