TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income when the assessee had failed to claim such deduction by filing revised return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act 2. AO stated that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that in the profit and loss account, bad debts written off has been shown on the net basis amounting to ₹ 1,04,78,436/-, break of which is as under : Bad debts written of ₹ 1,87,70,011/- Less : Provision for doubtful debs ₹ 82,91,575/- Assessee stated that bad debts should have been claimed on gross basis as the provision of doubt debts of ₹ 82,91,575/- as provisions had been disallowed in the earlier years. Assessee requested, at the time of assessment to increase the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Members is regarding the question whether the CIT(A) ought to have first decided the question of entertainability of the assessee's higher claim of depreciation by a letter and not by a revised return, before deciding the merits of the claim. In Goetze ( India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. In the same decision, it was made clear that the power of the Tribunal to admit an additional ground under s. 254 is not affected by its decision. It was however clarified that the case was concerned with only the power of the assessing authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the return of income and it was merely enlarged to 40 per cent on the footing that the assessee was running the trucks on hire. It cannot be said to be an entirely new claim made for the first time in the letter filed by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) therefore committed no error in dealing with the assessee's appeal on merits. Moreover, the AO himself has examined the claim on merits though he earlier held that the claim was not entertainable and the letter was non est. A decision having been given by him on merits it was open to the CIT(A) to deal with the merits. I, therefore, agree with the learned AM that the C1T(A) was not precluded from dealing with the assessee's claim for higher depr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
