9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh claim before the Assessing Officer can be made only by filing a revised return, not otherwise. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed in the revised return of income which was barred by limitation and hence could not be considered as a valid return. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of loans waived by banks in favour of the assessee in a one time settlement amounting to ₹ 4,40,22,653/- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from other Sources' at ₹ 20.19 Crores. It submitted before the AO that this income arose on account of one time settlement with two banks from whom it had taken loans. The said amount was shown in the P L A/c as an extraordinary income. In the revised return of income, it was claimed that amount waived by the banks consisted of interest component of ₹ 20.79 Crores and principal amount of ₹ 4.40 Crores. Assessee-company claimed that waived principal amount did not result in income. Referring to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (284 ITR 323) AO held that sum of ₹ 4.40 Crores was taxable income. Assessee-company preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loans from ICICI Bank Ltd., and Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd (ADCB), that assessee was later declared a sick company by the Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(o) of the SIC Act, that consequent to the one time settlement arrived at with both the banks, assessee-company paid certain amounts to them against the loan amounts, assessee-company got a waiver of loan of ₹ 3.06 Crores from ICICI Bank Ltd., and of ₹ 1.33 Crores from ADCB, that both the banks waived the interest amount aggregating to ₹ 20.07 Crores, that while filing the original return of income, assessee-company had offered for taxation, the waiver of principal amount aggregating to ₹ 4.40 Crores as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10) and Iskraemeco Regenet Ltd (331 ITR 317) 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material put before us. The facts of the case can be summarized as under: i. Original return of income was filed by the assessee on 31-10-2007 declaring loss of ₹ 9.87 Crores; ii. Assessee-company had offered an income of ₹ 25.19 Crores from other sources on account one time settlement with two banks; iii. The said income comprised of two components i.e., principal amount of ₹ 4.4 Crores and interest amount of ₹ 20.79 Crores; iv. On 20-10-2009, assessee filed a revised return to correct the mistake it found in the original return with regard to principal component of ₹ 4.4 Crores; v. Assessee su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers Shareholders P. Ltd., (supra) has clearly stated that appellate authorities were not barred from admitting legal claim in the appellate proceedings, if the facts were available on records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra) had held that making a fresh claim before the AO, assessee has to file a revised return, but for appellate authorities there is no such bar. 8. In these circumstances, if the FAA had directed the AO to re-calculate taxable income as per the claim made by the assessee-company, in our opinion, he had taken a rational and judicious decision. It is also mention-worthy that company is a BIFR company and it is in process of revival. Not only this, it also an important factor th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
