TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had considered the appellant's claim on the merits and that action had not been challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that under the circumstances, the Revenue's contention could not be upheld. The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that since the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was in its favour, there was no question of the Revenue filing an appeal and the observation made by the Tribunal in this regard was ex facie erroneous. The observation made by the Tribunal was with respect to the Revenue's contention that the assessee's claim could not be considered on the merits. It is, in this context, that the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s action of examining the assessee's clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO ) passed the assessment order dated October 23, 2009, under section 143(3) of the Act making certain disallowances with respect to the prior period expenses. 4. During the relevant period, mutual funds/financial institutions/debenture holders had waived certain amounts due from the assessee as a part of the financial restructuring scheme pertaining to the assessee. The amount waived included interest as well as the principal amount. The said amount was included as a revenue receipt and the assessment was made accordingly. The assessment order dated October 23, 2009, was challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that a sum of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer, which indicated that the assessee had, in fact, made a claim for the waiver of the said principal amount to be treated as a capital receipt. 7. During the relevant period, the assessee had written back a sum of ₹ 16.85 crores on account of extraordinary items in its profit and loss account. The aforesaid amount represented interest as well as the principal waived by the mutual funds/financial institutions/debenture holders in terms of a restructuring scheme pertaining to the assessee. In so far as the element of interest is concerned, there is no dispute that the same would be taxable by virtue of the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. However, the sum of ₹ 1,26,49,144 represented cessation of principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made by the Tribunal was with respect to the Revenue's contention that the assessee's claim could not be considered on the merits. It is, in this context, that the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s action of examining the assessee's claim on the merits had not been challenged. The said observations do not relate to the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the merits of the assessee's claim. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal. 14. It is clarified that the question as to whether the Assessing Officer could entertain a claim during the course of assessment proceedings is left open. 15. The appeal is, accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
