Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (7) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... year - the claim of the assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2007- 08 made in the revised return, omission to make claim in the original return appears to be a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, more so, since no material to the contrary has been brought on record by the AO - even if the assessee has not filed revised return, AO is bound to allow carried forward loss or depreciation as per the record - CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to accept the revised return and to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2007-08, after due verification – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of compensation for crop loss – Held that:- There were negot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation for the A.Y. 2007-08 on which assessee is eligible for relief. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that assessee claimed losses through revised return for the A.Y. 2007-08 to negate the addition made on account of creditors in A.Y. 2006-07 and thus, let to claim unabsorbed depreciation through revised return which is not a genuine claim. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the entire action of filing revised returns and claim of unabsorbed depreciation for the A.Y. 207-08 arose on account of assessee s attempt to seek relief for the additions made in the A.Y. 2006-07 and hence, not admissible. 6. The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that there is an order of Tahsildar, Balanagar on 18-07-2008 though there is n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... off in the revised return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 cannot be allowed. The Assessing Officer accordingly adopted the income returned in the original return and proceeded to complete the assessment . 5. On appeal, the CIT(A), after referring to the provisions of S.139 and the decision of Guahati High court in the case of CIT V/s. Sundaram Deka V/s. CIT(210 ITR 988) in the light of the facts of the present case, concluded that the revised return filed by the assessee is in order, and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return for the purpose of computation of total income. He also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 2007-089 and allo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the revised return, omission to make such claim in the original return appears to be a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, more so, since no material to the contrary has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Even if the assessee has not filed revised return, Assessing Officer is bound to allow carried forward loss or depreciation as per the record. So filing of revised return is only technical in nature. In these circumstances, the CIT(A) in our considered view was right in directing the Assessing Officer to accept the revised return and to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 2007-08, after due verification thereof. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntinue the running of the factory by the assessee, and it was only settled vide Tahsildar s order dated 18.7.2008 and the payment was made on 28.2.2008. This shows that the liability to pay the compensation in question has crystalised only during the period relevant to the year under appeal, even though the liability related to the earlier year as well. In the circumstances, the CIT(A), in our considered opinion was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the entire amount of compensation paid in the year under appeal itself. We accordingly uphold he order of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the Revenue in this behalf. 12. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 9t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates