TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in respect of the order of ITAT admitting the claim of the assessee for disallowance of loss of ₹ 28.12 Crores(Ground No. 4) and bad debts of ₹ 20,60,148/-(Ground No. 5). The department had enclosed the extract from Order Sheet of CIT(A) wherein it has been mentioned that Ground No. 4 5 has not been pressed by the authorized representative, Shri B Narsinga Rao and Shri B Narsinga Rao has signed the same. The revenue has filed an MA stating that the AR of the assessee did not press these two ground and hence the averment of the AR misleading to the Hon ble Tribunal. The revenue submitted that the order obtained by fraud and misrepresentation is to be called back relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and accordingly, these grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes . 6. The issue as to whether the assessee had actually withdrawn the grounds before the CIT(A) or not, has had the benefit of being perused by the tribunal in the first round of appeal wherein the Tribunal had addressed the specific issue of the assessee not pressing certain grounds before the CIT(A). After considering the submissions made by both sides they had come to the conclusion that the issue needs to be readjudicated by the AO and has therefore set aside the issue. The tribunal being aware of the issue had decided the same after discussion and, therefore, cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ror or omission, it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right and it has nothing to do with the concept of the inherent power to review. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal would be regarded as having committed a mistake in not considering the material which is already on record. 9. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products v. CIT(supra), has held that the Tribunal would be regarded as having committed a mistake in not considering the material which is already on record. In the present case before us, the revenue has not brought additional material to prove that the assessee had withdrawn the grounds at the time of hearing the appeal by the Tribunal. The material, i.e. order sheet entry brought by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed return was filed on 29-03-2006 i.e. after the expiry of the limitation period. At Ground No.12, it was stated that the amount of loss from the redundant Animation Projects WIP amounting to RsA,06,12,414/-. This is not factually correct. In the revised return, the assessee claimed redundant Animation Projects WIP of ₹ 2,48,83.969/-. At Ground No.13, it was stated that the redundant Software and production WIP of ₹ 4,98,19,571/-. This statement is also not factually correct. The amount claimed in the revised return under redundant Software and Production WIP is ₹ 2,49,09,786/-. At Ground No.14, it was stated that the assessee claimed Noncollectihle loans and advances of ₹ 3,25,64,086/- in the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it prescribed under section 139(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and hence, the same is to be treated as invalid return and no cognizance can be given to the above return. In support of the above, the Xerox copies of the revised return filed on 29-03-2006 and copy of the computation sheet enclosed to the revised return were submitted herewith. 17. Hence in the M.A. before us it was pointed out that on the basis of the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, the Hon'ble ITAT set aside the order observing that the assessee has duly made the afore said claims through the revised return and the Assessing Officer has passed the order without discussing the same. 18. In view of the above mentioned facts, in this M.A. it was submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that same was not objected to by the learned DR. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions found merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the AO without discussing the claims made in the revised return has passed assessment order. The tribunal also observed the AO has nevertheless mentioned in the order u/s 154 dated 25th September, 2006 that the above claims have been duly considered during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal in the absence of speaking order passed by the AO remitted the matter back to the file of the AO in the interest of justice to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 20. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly brought out the facts in its order and aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
