9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were pending. Unfortunately, the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, though noted the said argument of the assessee in paragraph 9.2, failed to take into consideration the said amount. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessee is right in contending that if ₹ 16.77 Crores was never claimed as a deduction, then obviously the said amount could not be treated as income by the assessee. On account of two orders passed by the Tribunal, the impugned order dated 12.7.2017 and the subsequent order dated 24.1.2018, which granted relief to the assessee by allowing the provision of ₹ 25.66 Crores, it appears that a confusion has arisen, as a result of which, the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raising the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not adjudicating the main grounds of appeal raised regarding deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer of provision of outstanding of ₹ 16,77,14,178/- ? And ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the provision of ₹ 16,77,14,176/- was merely outstanding balance of provision originally made as on 31.3.2009 carried forward in the balance sheet from year to year and as it was neither debited in profit and loss account during the assessment year 2012-13 nor claimed as a deduction and therefore ought to have directed the deletion of the said addition? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion got reduced to ₹ 16,77,14,178/- as on 31.3.2012. 5. For the assessment year under consideration in this appeal namely 2012-13, the assessee filed the return of income on 27.9.2012 declaring loss of ₹ 12,92,62,977/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.3.2015 determining the total income at ₹ 18,40,27,900/-. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment, made an addition of ₹ 16,77,14,178/- being the balance sheet item, which was not claimed in the profit and loss account of the assessment year 2012-13 subsequent to disallowance of such provision of ₹ 25.66 Crores in the assessment year 2009-10. During the course of the assessment, it appears that the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.66 Crores in the assessment year 2009-10 as the appeals before the Tribunal in ITA.Nos.1159 and 1160/Mds/2017 were pending at the relevant time and orders were passed thereon only on 24.1.2018, much after the order impugned before us. 7. In the said order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.1.2018, there was a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow the entire provisions towards the enhanced compensation debited in the profit and loss account for the assessment year 2009-10 to the tune of ₹ 25.66 Crores based on the fact that the enhanced compensation accrued and accordingly, the assessee provided for the same. In the background of these facts, the assessee has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 12.7.2017 passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther contended that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as the entire provisions of ₹ 25.66 Crores made during the financial year 2008-09 were disallowed, the amount actually paid during the year to the tune of ₹ 3.52 Crores and adjusted against the provision should be allowed as a deduction. 11. The second contention raised before the Tribunal was an alternate submission and what was the substantive submission was that the balance sheet item of ₹ 16.77 Crores was never claimed as a deduction by the assessee. 12. Unfortunately, the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, though noted the said argument of the assessee in paragraph 9.2, failed to take into consideration the said amount. Therefore, in our con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
