9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No. 426/2019 CM Appl. No. 19864/2019 (delay) in ITA No. 427/2019 CM Appl. No. 19868/2019 (delay) in ITA No. 429/2019 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 30 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of. ITA Nos. 475/2019, 426/2019, 427/2019 and 429/2019 3. These are four appeals by the Revenue against a common impugned order dated 31st October, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT'). 4. ITA No. 475/2019 is directed against the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 6243/Del/2013 for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-2006; ITA No. 426/2019 is directed against an order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1347/Del/2013 for AY 2008-2009, ITA No. 427/2019 is directed against an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original assessment was computed at a taxable income of Rs. 2,89,55,200/-, the re-assessment, after making an addition of Rs. 2,10,65,809/- led to the computation of a total income of Rs. 5,00,21,010/-. 8. In the appeal before the CIT (A), the re-opening of the assessment by the AO was annulled. On merits also, the CIT (A) held in favour of the Respondent observing that it had followed Accounting Standard 13 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) with pre-acquisition interest paid and post acquisition interest income. The addition of Rs. 2,10,65,809/- made by the AO was deleted. 9. The facts relevant to AY 2005-2006 are that the Respondent filed its return of income on 24th December, 2007 declaring a loss of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act. 12. For the second time around, the Respondent filed an appeal before the CIT (A) where one of the main grounds taken was that the AO was not justified in refusing to compute the total income of the Respondent in terms of Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule. The CIT (A) by the order dated 10th June, 2014 accepted this plea and deleted the disallowances. 13. The facts for AY 2006-2007 were identical to AY 2005-2006 in so far as the Respondent had initially filed return of income as per Sections 28 to 43 of the Act but later filed revised computation under Section 44 of the Act before the CIT (A). Likewise, for AY 2010-2011 also, where the CIT (A) directed the AO to determine income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esumptive observation of the Revenue audit which itself was not based on any tangible material. 17. Consequently, as far as AY 2004-2005 in is concerned, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the ITAT and no substantial question of law arises. 18. As far as the other appeals are concerned, the central issue is whether the income of the Respondent ought to have been permitted to be computed under Section 44 of the Act? Further, for some AYs, whether it could have been permitted at the stage of the appeal before the CIT (A)? 19. As rightly observed by the ITAT, it is not in dispute that the Respondent carried on the business of life insurance. It is obliged to maintain its books of accounts and prepare its financial stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
