9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on has not been disputed he submitted that he has no objection for remand of the matter to the first appellate authority to consider the issue of disallowance of bad debts afresh including the contentions urged by Mr. K. V. Aravind - when the Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the FAA before the Tribunal, they had raised the issue in the present appeal and before the Tribunal they challenged the order of the first appellate authority in respect of the disallowance of bad debts on the merits – thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the FAA for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. Deletion of accrued interest on broken period – Held that:- During the pendency of the appeal, the Revenue informs the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 94 of 2005 pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000. In the present case, we are concerned only with the order in I. T. A. No. 73 of 2005. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal before the Tribunal was directed against the order dated November 3, 2004, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short the appellate authority ) whereby the appellate authority set aside the order dated July 30, 2004, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time and with their assistance, gone through the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent restoration of appeal on receipt of the COD's approval on the issue of adjustments to book profits for the purpose of tax under section 115JA ? It appears, for the assessment year 1999-2000, the respondent-assessee, i.e., Canara Bank, filed a return of income on December 30, 1999. After processing the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the case was selected for scrutiny and an order under section 143(3) was passed on March 28, 2002. Consequently, an order under section 263 was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, dated October 10, 2002. As per this order, the assessment under section 143(3) was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to redo the assessment on certain points indicated therein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, wherein the following issue was framed : The allowability of bad debts written off under clause (vii) of section 36(1) which are the provision made under clause (viia) of section 36(1). The Assessing Officer has disallowed the entire bad debts of Rs. 467.10 crores as per the discussion in the body of the assessment order applying the provisions of section 36(2)(v). The issue was, however, not answered by the Commissioner and he simply recorded that the issue is treated as dropped after considering the assessee's submissions . There does not appear to be any dispute that the question of disallowance of bad debts was already concluded, vide order dated March 28, 2002, passed by the Assessing Officer under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03, passed by the Commissioner in revision under section 263 of the Act. In other words, he submitted that the order dated March 28, 2002, had attained finality, and, therefore, it was not open to the appellate authority to consider the issue of disallowance of bad debts and allow the appeal. This position, though has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, he submitted that he has no objection for remand of the matter to the first appellate authority to consider the issue of disallowance of bad debts afresh including the contentions urged by Mr. K. V. Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue before us and as recorded in this order. We are saying so in view of the fact that when the Revenue filed an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi, bearing No. A-12034/01/2011-Ad.I. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said memorandum read thus : 2. Instances have come to notice wherein a few PSUs/departments have approached tribunals/courts to reopen the cases in which permission to litigate was denied by CoD. In a few cases, public sector undertaking/Departments have filed petitions in the High Courts. In an isolated case, a special leave petition (SLP) has also been filed in the hon'ble Supreme Court by an organization against the High Court decision seeking clarification of the order dated February 17, 2011, of the hon'ble Supreme Court, although the High Court had declined to reopen the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
