TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings of the CIT(A) - Decided against the assesse. - I.T.A.No.752/Mds/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2013 - Shri N. S. Saini And Shri S. S. Godara,JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT(DR) ORDER Per S. S. Godara, Judicial Member This assessee's appeal arises from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax -IX, Chennai dated 21-12-2012 passed in ITA No. 59/2011-12, for assessment year 2004-2005, in proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short the "Act"]. 2. The substantive grounds raised in the appeal read as follows:- "2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "LAO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. In the course of hearing, none is present on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment petition has been filed by the ARs stating therein that they are collating details. However, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee in the course of hearing. In this view of the matter and more so in the view of the fact that the CIT(A) has confirmed the additions in view of the findings against the assessee in the preceding assessment years, we purpose to decide the case on merits after rejecting the assessee's petition. 6. Facts apropos ground no.2 are that while finalizing re- assessment, the AO noticed that from September, 2002, the assessee had adopted practice of not accounting for interest on loans outstanding for more than 90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the total income. Therefore, I am in agreement with the reason of the then CIT(A) in this regard. Hence, the addition made of Rs. 1,21,93,591/0 in this regard is hereby confirmed." 8. We have examined the facts and perused the case file. It is made clear that there is no pleading made on behalf of the assessee specifically averring that the reliance placed by the lower authorities on the order of the CIT(A) dated 29.8.2006 for preceding assessment year, has been finally decided against the Revenue or there is any distinction in facts of the cases. In this matter, we are of the view that the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the finding of CIT(A) in question. The relevant ground is therefore decided against the assesse. 9. This leaves us wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer's stand. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT vide ITA No.361/Mds/2006 dated 27.09.2007, the addition made in this regard is hereby confirmed.'' We have perused the case file. It transpires that in the preceding assessment year (supra), the very disallowance had been made treating software expenses as 'capital' in nature. The issue travelled upto 'tribunal' wherein it had been decided in favour of the Revenue. The assessee no were pleads that the findings of the 'tribunal' have been reversed. That being the case, we see no reason to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A). The relevant ground is therefore decided against the assesse. 11. Consequently, in the light of our above discussion, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
