TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same are shown to be perverse - See SUDARSHAN SILKS SAREES VS. CIT [ 2008 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT ] Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 applies to the appellate authority namely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and not the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the assessee had produced the material which it had produced before the Tribunal, even before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to take note of the material produced by the assessee and did not call for the remand report. The Supreme Court, in NATIONAL THERMAL POWER [ 1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT ] while dealing with the power of the Tribunal, held that Tribunal may pass such orders as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVS.,) AND: RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURYANARAYANA T, ADV.) - - - JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE J., Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralagi, learned counsel with Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-03. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior period expenses, debts and advances written off, bad debts, cessation of liabilities under Section 41(1) of the Act, provident fund payments and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed the appeals preferred by the revenue as well as the assessee. The claim of the assessee in respect of prior period expenses as well as deduction of claim towards expenditure / liability to the extent of ₹ 1,35,73,930/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s business liability as only a provision was made by the assessee and no actual payment was debited in the books of accounts. It is further submitted that the amount payable to the Government is covered under Section 43B of the Act. It is urged that in view of Rule 36(A)(3) of the Income Tax Rules, the Tribunal ought to have sent for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'GOETZE INDIA LTD. Vs. CIT' 284 ITR 323. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee while inviting our attention to substantial questions of law framed by this Court submitted that the revenue has not challenged the findings recorded by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of the Supreme Court in 'TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASIK' (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 361 (SC), 'BHARAT EARTH MOVERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' (2000) 112 TAXMAN 61 (SC) AND 'NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' 229 ITR 383. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and this Court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act can interfere with the findings of fact only when the same are shown to be perverse. (See: SUDARSHAN SILKS SAREES VS. CIT , 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es an opportunity of being heard and there is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we may now advert to the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in paragraph 5.7.1 has recorded a finding that the assessee had taken a ground before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) claiming deduction of ₹ 2,56,28,132/- towards prior period expenses as the same was not claimed originally on an erroneous impression that the same was not allowable under the Act. The Tribunal has further noted that a detailed submission was made before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
