TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-03): 2. The solitary issue raised by the Revenue is with respect to the learned CIT(A) not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward business losses of ₹5.16 Crores pertaining to Assessment Year 1999-00, particularly when the return of income was treated as invalid in view of the order u/s.119(2)(b) dt.23.6.2008 of the CBDT. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer by way of an order u/s.154 considered the order of the Tribunal, when the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee on finding that the inability of the assessee to furnish the audited accounts along with the return filed u/s.139(1) suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that the Assessing Officer needlessly made an issue between the order of the ITAT and the denial of the contention of delay by the CBDT insofar as this issue was agitated by the Department before the Tribunal by way of a Misc. petition when the Tribunal in their order dt.2.9.2008 held that the proceedings before the ITAT are independent from that of the CBDT and there was no need to consider the same by clearly observing that there was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal when the return was to be accepted under the provisions which the assessee agreed to the proposition that it had not filed the return on time. The Tribunal had noted that the explanation below Section 139(9) did not have any direct impact on the issue once it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Assessing Officer under the head Net Present Value (NPV) treating the same as capital expenditure. 5. The learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the payment of NPV does not bring any enduring benefit whereas the assessee enjoys long run benefit for years together by raising minerals from the land for which NPV is paid. 6. At the outset the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2007-08 which order dt.27.5.2011 is directly on the issue when the Tribunal was pleased to consider the issue from all angle by upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) who had noted that as per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and considered by the learned CIT(A). In this view of the matter, the issue agitated by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.266/CTK/2010 (Assessment Year 2004-05): 7. The issue as raised in the appeal for the Assessment Year 2002-03 has been raised in this appeal for the Assessment Year 2004-05 as well when on detail finding of fact it has been submitted that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s.147/148 when he recomputed the disallowance of losses which the learned CIT(A) had considered in the light of the fact that the CBDT has refused to condone the delay in filing the returns by the assessee when the Assessing Officer himself afforded an opportunity to the assessee for filing the return under the provisions of Sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
