9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in para 6.2.2 stated that the ground is rejected. We think it is only an inadvertent mistake of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in rejecting the ground. Since he has already directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether business loss of assessment year 1998-99 is carried forward only upto assessment year 2006-07 or not. Thus, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to carry out the observations/directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ascertain as to whether business loss of the assessment year 1998-99 is carried forward only upto 2006-07 and not beyond that period. - Appeal of assessee allowed partly for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2369/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Tribunal was with respect to disallowance of ₹ 31,12,318/- regarding provision for doubtful debts and this ground was not pressed before the Tribunal for the reasons not known. He submits that Tribunal therefore had no occasion to adjudicate on the disallowance of provision for doubtful debts. The issue in question in the present appeal is disallowance for provision for doubtful advance of ₹ 38,54,270/- and since doubtful advance of ₹ 38,54,270/- which was already included in ₹ 69,66,588/- and was disallowed by the assessee in its computation of income, there is no justification at all in disallowing the said amount once again. 4. Departmental Representative supports the orders of lower authorities. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also sustained the disallowance observing that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on a similar addition in respect of provision for doubtful debts which was part of claim of ₹ 69,66,588/-, as the assessee did not press for adjudication of that ground . 6. We have perused the computation of income and the schedule at page 6 of the paper book with regard to administration and other expenses which clearly shows that assessee in fact had disallowed both the provision for doubtful debts of ₹ 31,12,318/- and provision for doubtful advances of ₹ 38,54,270/- while computing income for the assessment year 2006-07. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1998-99 held as under:- 6.2 Disallowance of carry forward business loss - A.Y. 1998-99 of ₹ 23,47,88,896/- The second ground filed by the appellant is against the action of the AO in making disallowance of ₹ 23,47,88,896/- under the head disallowance of carried forward business loss. This issue was discussed by the AO at para 5 of the assessment order as under: 5. It was seen from the statement of total income that the assessee after accounting for brought forward losses has carried forward business and depreciation losses pertaining to AYs 1996-97 to 2005-06 for set off. In this regard, business loss of AY 1998-99 after adjusting the losses of current year has been carried forward for set off to an extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the assessment that the business loss for the assessment year 1998-99 can be forward upto AY 2006-07 only and not beyond that. This legal position was not disputed by the appellant and same was agreed during the course of assessment. The submission of the AR of the appellant is also not different from the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment. However, the Assessing Officer may verify the claims of the appellant from his record. Therefore, this ground of appeal is rejected. 11. As could be seen from the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the last line of the order in para 6.2.2 stated that the ground is rejected. We think it is only an inadvertent mistake of Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
