9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and held that the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court) was limited to the power of the assessing authority only to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing revised return of income and it did not impinge upon the power of the appellate authority. Thereafter, the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) were on the merits of the additional ground raised by the assessee. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been questioned by the revenue before the Tribunal. Accordingly, no question on the merits of the additional ground arises out of the impugned order. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2004. In the course of the assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 18.12.2006, the assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer the fact of filing the revised return of income on 20.4.2006. The revised return of income came to filed for the reason that the expenses to the extent of ₹ 90,97,755/- pertaining to the relevant previous year remained to be accounted for in the books of accounts of the company, though, the liability of those expenses had accrued and crystallized in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2004-05. Due to accounting mistake, the expenses were not accounted in the previous year ended on 31.3.2004 and on realizing the mistake while finalizing the accounts for the previous year ended on 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phony Comfort Systems Limited, rendered on 29.11.2011 in Tax Appeal No.97 of 2010, restored the matter to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the additional ground taken by the assessee on merits. 6. Pursuant to such remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the ground of appeal on merits and observed that the amount of ₹ 90,97,755/- shown to be the expenditure in the revised return represented the purchase of goods of ₹ 90,15,397/- and stores and spares consumed of ₹ 82,368/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the computation of income was done by the Assessing Officer on the basis of return of original income and there was no reference to the revised return in the order made under section 143(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee could not be treated as a revised return in accordance with law, the claim of the assessee for additional loss of ₹ 90,97,755/- could not have been entertained. It was urged that the Assessing Officer had no opportunity to examine the genuineness of expenditure of ₹ 90,97,755/- claimed by the assessee and therefore, also the Tribunal was not justified in allowing such claim. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order does give rise to a question of law as proposed or otherwise and that the appeal deserves to be entertained. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on caveat on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the questions as proposed, do not arise out of the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed under section 139(5) of the Act. As discussed earlier, insofar as the issue relating to the revised return is concerned, the same has attained finality by the earlier order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.3187/Ahd/ 2010, whereby the Tribunal allowed the cross appeal of the assessee and held that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) was limited to the power of the assessing authority only to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing revised return of income and it did not impinge upon the power of the appellate authority. Thereafter, the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) were on the merits of the additional ground raised by the assessee. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
