9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleting the addition on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) amounting to ₹ 49,37,388/-. 3. The revenue is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) amounting to ₹ 49,37,388/-. The assessing officer while making disallowance of ₹ 49,37,388/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act has observed as under:- 2.1 On verification of accounts and details furnished, it is observed that the assessee has made investments in the following overseas companies. 1 592765 equity shares of Catalys Venture Cap. Ltd. Mauritius- Subsidiary company 262,84,646 2 760 equity shares of Claris Lifesciences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the facts of the case; assessment order and appellant s submission. Assessing Officer disallowed the interest on the capital borrowed since appellant made investment in shares of subsidiary companies. Investment in two subsidiaries is coming since last many years whereas investment in Brazilian company was made during the year. The disallowance of interest on account of such investment in shares was made in earlier years also however ITAT Ahmedabad has allowed the deduction in its order dated December 22,2006 for Asst. Year 2000-01 and A.Y. 2002-03 was filed in which the issue of interest disallowance was decided in appellant s favor. In the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2003-04, my learned predecessor in the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11/2004. In the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 18/12/2006 the fact of fling revised return of income on 20/04/2006. The revised return of income came to be filed for the reason that expenses to the extent of ₹ 90,97,755/- pertaining to the relevant previous year remain to be accounted for in the books of accounts of other company, though, the liability for these expenses had accrued and crystallized in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. Due to accounting mistake, the expenses where not accounted in the previous year ended 31/03/2004 and on realizing the mistake while finalizing the account for the previous year ended on 31st March, 2005, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed on 20/04/2006 vide acknowledgement no. 0060100013, disclosing revised total loss at ₹ 2,13,68,576/-. The revised return of income was filed before finalization of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer has accepted the said return. It is pertinent mention here that the Assessing Officer has not expressly passed any order treating the revised return as invalid or non est. The appellant therefore submits that the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in not considering the said revised return of income while finalizing the assessment order under appeal. The implications of filing a revised return are:- (a) Original return is substituted for such revised return (b) Original return is treated as withdrawn (c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Mills Ltd. which has been followed by the Gujrat High Court in the case of GMDC Limited). The expenditure in question i.e. purchases of trading goods and stores and spares consumed are fully allowable in computing the total income of the assessee. The appellant therefore submits that the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking the net loss at ₹ 1,22,17,820/- as per the original return of income which has been substituted to ₹ 2,13,68,576/- as per the revised return of income filed on 20/04/2006. The Assessing Officer ought to have taken the figure of net loss at ₹ 2,13,68,576/- as per the revised return of income field on 20/04/2006. It is therefore prayed that the total income of the appellant for the year under a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of IT act to entertain for the first time a point of law, provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before tribunal is discussed. Since this decision clearly debars assessing officer from taking up any issue otherwise than by way of revised return, assessing officer is correct in law by not entertaining appellant s claim of expenses. Since there was no valid claim before the assessing officer, the same was not to be entertained by him. As regards raising such issue in first appeal, since this ground is not coming from the assessment order or return of income, the same cannot be entertained even at first appeal stage. The claim of expenses is not a legal claim but a claim of facts. In my opinion such a claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
