Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1449 - AT - Income TaxContradicting claim in the computation of income vis-a-vis the amount stated in the Auditors report in Form no. 10B - Held that:- In the present case, in the computation of income assessee claimed deduction of an amount of ₹ 79,54,625/- as application of money in terms of clause (ii)(b) of Explanation to Sec. 11(1) of the Act. Also emerging that in the Audit report in prescribed Form no. 10B annexed with the return, said amount was shown as ₹ 75,78,521/-. The explanation of assessee is that the amount stated in Form no. 10B is an inadvertent mistake. It is quite clear that in the subsequent Assessment Year of 2004-05 when assessee actually spent the said sum, the claim made was to the extent of ₹ 79,54,625/-, as is borne out from the copy of statement of total income for Assessment Year 2004-05 placed in the Paper Book at pages 55 to 66. At the time of hearing, the learned representative pointed out that the claim of application of income to the extent of ₹ 79,54,625/- with respect to Assessment Year 2003-04 stands accepted in the assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05, which has been finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2006. Therefore, the furnishing of Form no. 10B at an understated figure of ₹ 75,78,521/- is ostensibly a mistake. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to uphold the stand of Assessing Officer in making addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Set-off of Long Term Capital Gain against the brought forward Long Term Capital Loss and carry forward of the balance unabsorbed Long Term Capital Loss - Held that:- CIT(A) has allowed the stand of assessee considering the order of the predecessor CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for the instant assessment year dated 18.1.2007, wherein a similar issue was dealt with arising from the regular assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.3.2006. Before us, the learned representative for the respondent-assessee pointed out that in the original assessment proceedings, appeal of the assessee was allowed by the CIT(A) after receiving a Remand report from the Assessing Officer wherein such a claim was agreed to by the Assessing Officer. It has also been pointed out that against the order of CIT(A) dated 18.1.2007, which has since been followed by the CIT(A) now, the Department had not come in appeal before the Tribunal. The aforesaid factual matrix brought out by the learned representative for the assessee is not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, in our view, the CIT(A) made no mistake in allowing the claim of assessee and, therefore, the Revenue has to fail in its appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|