TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Goetze (India) (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court ) does not place fetters on appellate authorities to entertain fresh claims put forth by the assessee on issues which are a part of record, and/or are material for the purpose of assessing the correct tax liabiity of an assessee in accordance with law. In coming to this finding we draw support from the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court) and CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997 (8) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA High Court). Thus we set aside the impugned order of the ld CIT(A) and after admitting the grounds raised by the assessee on its claim for being allowed write off of bad debts restore the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account. It was submitted that since the claim for allowing write off of the aforesaid bad debts was put forth in the course of assessment proceedings but was neither made in the original return of income filed for asst. year 2011-12 nor by way of a revised return of income, the same was rejected by the AO. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s claim for being allowed the write off of the said bad debts, stating in view of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) (284 ITR 323) (SC) the assessee s claim was rightly denied by the AO. 3.1 The assessee, aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bangalore dated 9/6/2016 for asst. year 2011-12, has filed this appeal raising the following grounds:- 1. The order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under consideration, but was inadvertently not claimed in the return of income and computation of income for asst. year 2011-12. On realizing this inadvertent mistake, the said claim for written of bad debts of ₹ 4,31,73,431/- was put forth before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dated 7/3/2014, which came to be rejected by the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) (284 ITR 323) (SC). 3.2.2 Before us, it is contended that the ld CIT(A) instead of considering the assessee s claim for write off of bad debts amounting to ₹ 4,31,93,431/- on merits, has dismissed the assessee s appeal summararily holding that the action of the AO in rejecting the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ten off in the assessee s books of account in the year under consideration. It was submitted by the assessee, before the AO, that this claim was not made in the return of income filed for inadvertently in the return of income filed for asst. year 2011-12. The AO rejected the assesse s claim following the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) (Supra) as the said claim was not raised by way of filing of revised return of income. 3.4.2 On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee s appeal without dealing with the grounds raised on the merits of issue of the aforesaid claim for write off of bad debts amounting to ₹ 4,31,73,431/- but dismissed the appeal on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
