TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility in the hands of the assessee. However, the Tribunal did not do so, but was solely guided by the observations made by it in the earlier order. We are of the considered view that as the earlier order was of the prima facie view, the Tribunal is required to consider independently as to whether the finding rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is proper or not and that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration - Tax Case Appeal No. 588 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam And K. Ravichandrabaabu, JJ. For the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in its earlier order dated 03.4.2012 in ITA. No.871/Mds/2011 confirming the revision order under Section 263 can be construed as a categorical finding of cessation/remission of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act ? and iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act are attracted in respect of waiver of loans, which have not been allowed as a deduction earlier ? 3. The present appeal arose out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by which, the Revenue's appeal was allowed and the deletion of addition made on account of cessation of bank liability to the extent of ₹ 46.05 Crores, as ordered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above observation made by the Tribunal ultimately led to the impugned order, which has been passed by the Tribunal. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was satisfied with the assessee's contention and had allowed the appeal. Thus, it is to be seen as to whether the finding rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was just and proper. Paragraph 7 of the impugned order has dealt with the said issue in the following lines : In our opinion, since there is a categorical finding of the Tribunal that there was a cessation/ remission of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act on earlier occasion confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Act, wherein the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity in the hands of the assessee and it was only in the hands of the SPV and that if any cessation is to be considered, it has to be in the hands of the SPV. However, the Tribunal, while holding that the said finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not proper, did not render an independent finding, but was rather guided by the finding rendered by it in its earlier order dated 03.4.2012 referred above. 8. On a reading of paragraph 13 of the earlier order, which we have extracted above, we find that the Tribunal did not render a final finding, but it was of the prima facie view that there is a remission of liability in favour of the assessee company and that this is the paramount issue, which the Assessing Officer has to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
