9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. and deleting the addition of Rs. 27,82,000/- made by the AO. on account of difference in crediting in P&L account under the head sale of scrap and plant machinery. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Asansol has erred in law that the order of reassessment is bad in law since the prescribed procedure is not followed. Accordingly cancelled the order of reassessment made by A.O. and deleting the addition of Rs. 42,30,01,000/- made by the A.O. u/s 35E. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), Asansol has erred in law that the order of reassessment is bad in law since the prescribed procedure is not followed. Accordingly cancelled the order of reassessment made by AO. and deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,40,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance under the head royalty and cess." 3. From a perusal of the above grounds it is clear that these are grounds on merit, however, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the legal issue raised by the assessee to allow the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal on the ground that the AO has not disposed of the objections filed by the assessee against the decision of the AO to reopen the assessment as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in GKN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service to its employees, sports and recreational facilities. The grant in question is in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the grants given by the Assessee are not for the purpose of business of the Assessee. As an employer provision of grants to provide better conditions of service will be part of the labour cost of the Assessee and it has to be allowed as deduction. As far as the plea of the revenue that the evidence of areawise expenses were not produced, the plea of the Assessee was that the coal area is scattered over a large area and that the Assessee being a Government of India Undertaking, its accounts are subject to review by CAG and no adverse comments have been made by the CAG. This plea in our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case was enough to disregard the findings of the AO. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the deduction claimed had to be allowed. The same is directed to be allowed. The relevant grounds of appeal of the Assessee are allowed. " 6. The Ld. DR could not point out any change in facts and law pertaining to this issue so respectfull ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- made by the AO on account of hire charges of bus and ambulance. 10. At the outset itself, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has decided this issue in assessee's own case for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06, supra, at page 20 para 24. We note that the similar issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide para 31 has held as under: "31. After considering the rival submissions we are of the view that incurring of the expenses by the Assessee cannot be disputed and in fact has not been disputed by the revenue. There appears to be only a dispute with regard to the evidence of incurring of the expenses. The details to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the assessee, in our view, requires to be verified by the AO. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and remand the question of incurring of these expenses to the AO for fresh consideration, with liberty to the Assessee to let in evidence to substantiate its claim for deduction of the aforesaid expenditure. For statistical purposes the relevant grounds of appeal are treated as allowed." 11. Since the Tribunal has set aside the order or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, supra, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the revenue. 14. Ground no. 5 of the revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2,31,29,000/- made by the AO on account of donation made to school and club. 15. At the outset itself, the Ld. AR brought to our notice the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal "A" Bench, Delhi in the case of Northern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 42 & 43/Jab/2002 for AYs 1997-98 & 1998-99 wherein a similar issue was raised and the Tribunal took note of the Coordinate Bench decision of the Nagpur Bench in South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in 260 ITR (AT) 1 wherein it has held as under: "After examining-the rival submissions, we are of the view that the point at issue need not detain us much since we have the benefit of the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT reported in (2002) 260 ITR (AT) page 1 (Nagpur). The judgment in fact is a lengthy one and spans numerous pages of the report in question. In perusing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.0 sub-titled Educational Facilities & Workers' Education, 10.6.1(a) the existing practice of grant in aid to Private Committee Managed Schools will continue. The Welfare Board of the Subsidiary company will regulate payment of such grants/evolve norms for such payments. (b) Where the workers come forward with their own contribution for the running of educational institutions, matching grants will be given by the Coal Companies. In the light of the aforesaid agreement between the assessee and the National Coal Wage Agreement entered into with the employees' Union and as such the said agreement was enforceable under the law both the Indian Contract Act as well as under the Industrial Disputes Act, respectfully following the decision of the Nagpur Bench as well as Delhi bench, confirm the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. 17. Ground no. 6 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2,32,21,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO without any discussion in the assessment order disallowed the interest given to Coal India Ltd. u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs. 2,32,21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld and this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed. 19. Coming to the assessee's appeal. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not admitting and adjudicating the additional grounds adduced before him, which are reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 20 of his impugned order. The assessee's grounds of appeal are as follows: "1. For that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of I.Tax (Appeals), Asansol erred in law as well as in facts in not admitting and adjudicating the additional grounds adduced before him merely on the as is of surmises. 2. For that, without prejudice to the above and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of I.Tax (Appeals), ought to have adjudicated the Ground of Appeal before him in favour of the appellant, as decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323 relied on by him, does not bar the appellate authority to consider the issue even if no revised return have been filed. 3. For that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeal) ought to have reduced the assessed income by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. (supra), he declined to admit the additional ground raised before him. 21. First of all we observe that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any claim other than what has been claimed in the return of income, and then the AO can adjudicate the same only if revised return of income is filed before him (AO). In Goetz India Ltd. (supra) case, the assessee sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the AO and the deduction was disallowed by the AO on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying the return in the assessment stage without revising the return. This view of the AO was upheld by the Tribunal and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Goetz India Ltd. (supra) observed as under: "The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Incometax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
