9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to produce the materials - the factual position as it appears is that the assessee had raised additional ground of relief u/s 36(1)(viia) without any material - Nor the CIT(A) has directed it to produce the same - there seems to be some communication gap in lower appellate proceedings – thus, it would be proper to take the paper book filed by the assessee on record comprising of the above said material - the documents have not been examined either by the AO or the CIT(A), the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1998/Mds/2013 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2014 - Shri A. Mohan Alankamony And Shri S. S. Godara,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009-10 - provisioning requirement for standard assets dated 5th November 2009, NPA provision movement as on 31.03.2009, rural branch advance outstanding period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, total income statement, profit and loss account for the year ended 31.03.2009, balance sheet as on 31st March, 2009 and prays for acceptance of the appeal. 4. The Revenue strongly supports the order of CIT(A) under challenge disallowing brought forward losses and re-working the assessee s income to J58,36,700/-. Regarding application of section 36 (1)(viia), it contends that since there was no material placed on record in lower appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has rightly rejected the assessee s additional ground. 5. The assessee; the Nilgiris Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of charge of circumstances or law. 6. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT, the assessee did not claim any deduction of its liability to pay purchase tax under the provisions of the Bengal Jute Taxation Act 1941, as the assessee entertained a belief that it was not liable to pay purchase tax under the aforesaid Act but later on it was assessed to purchase tax despite the delay in filing of appeal before the Appellate Authority. The assessee thereafter claimed deduction for the said amount towards its liability to pay purchase tax as deduction for the assessment year in consideration. 7. Accordingly, in the case of Goetze India Ltd, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that additional claim cannot be made before the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not have been raised at the time of particular stage is when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made or when the grounds become available on account of change of circumstance or law. 9. Taking the facts of the case into consideration, in my opinion the appellant has raised the issue of allowance u/s. 36(1)(viia) for the first time in the appeal without any material on record. 10. As discussed the above, the appellant has not created the provision in the P L A/c provided for the assessment year 2009-10. Hence, the claim of the appellant is rejected. This ground of appeal is dismissed. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal. 7. We have heard both parties and gone through the case file as well as the paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
