TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above. Restricting of the relief by tribunal u/s. 145A of the Act to the tune 48.33 lacs as was relatable to income enhanced by learned CIT(A) , while Tribunal has not adjudicated on the additions to the tune of ₹ 16.4 lacs made by the AO , on the grounds that the AR of the assessee has made amendment in Ground No. 7 which was made post hearing of the appeal by taking file by AR from Bench Clerk, which move by the learned AR was not appreciated by the Tribunal. Now the assessee, who is Government of India undertaking being Public Sector Enterprises has come out with three affidavits, two by the counsel namely, CA Ms. Tanu Singhal and CA Mr. Amitava Ray, who have categorically denied and averred that they did not made any amendment in Ground No.7 in the memo of appeal filed with tribunal, and further stated that the aforesaid amendments were made by Mr. Sanjay B. Gupta, Manager( Finance) of the assessee who was authorized and competent to make such additions.It is further averred in the affidavit that the said amendment in grounds of appeal was made under instructions from the Bench. They have also given specimen signatures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) has enhanced income of the assessee by adding the entire write back of depreciation to the tune of ₹ 292.92 lacs. Thus, it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that while adjudicating this issue, tribunal erred in restricting the relief to 43.95 lacs instead of granting relief to the tune of ₹ 292.92 lacs. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has raised this issue in grounds of appeal filed with the tribunal, because ld. CIT(A) had enhanced the additions as were earlier made by the AO , from ₹ 43.95 lacs to ₹ 292.92 lacs. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the appellate order dated 28.07.2016 passed by tribunal, the grounds of appeal and prayer were made that the additions as were confirmed/enhanced by learned CIT(A) on account of reversal of depreciation in the books of accounts , to be deleted to the tune of ₹ 292.92 lacs, instead of restricting the relief to ₹ 43.95 lacs. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the appellate order passed by the tribunal and it is submitted that it is the assessee, who has himself not pressed Grounds No. 5 and 6, which is coming out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the corrections. It is also stated that Mr. Sanjay B. Gupta , Manager( Finance) was duly authorized to make corrections by the management of the assessee. 5. The ld. DR relied upon the appellate order passed by tribunal and submitted that there are no mistakes apparent from record which can be rectified at this stage within limited scope of Section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. 6. We have considered rival contentions and have perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee is a Public Sector Enterprise being a Government of India Undertaking. We have observed that the assessee has raised grounds of appeal with respect to enhancement to income made by ld. CIT(A) with respect to write back of depreciation by the assessee which was enhanced by learned CIT(A) to ₹ 292.92 lacs, as against addition to the income of ₹ 43.95 lacs originally made by the AO while framing assessment against the assessee.. The AO had made additions to income of the assessee to the tune of 15% of the total depreciation written back by the assessee by adding ₹ 43.95 lacs to income of the assessee, which was later enhanced by ld. CIT(A) to entire write back of depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f depreciation as was being brought forward from the earlier year therefore, it was held by the Tribunal that the AO was not correct in law in disallowing the depreciation amounting to ₹ 43.95 lacs. Thus, the tribunal restricted its finding and conclusions to grant of relief to the tune of ₹ 43.95 lacs as against relief of ₹ 292.92 lacs claimed by the assessee. We have observed that learned CIT(A) has given elaborate finding and reasoning in para 3.10 at page 12 wherein it is stated that the assessee has computed its Brought forwards losses and unabsorbed depreciation in an incorrect manner and further elaborations were made by learned CIT(A) while enhancing the income of the assessee on this issue. The tribunal has not dwelt upon /adjudicated this issue of enhancement of income by learned CIT(A) , which may require detailed arguments. The tribunal has dismissed the said ground of appeal raised by assessee on the grounds as being not pressed. The assessee is prejudiced by said dismissal in limine. Since Tribunal has restricted its finding to 43.95 lacs, it will be in the interest of justice that the Grounds No.5 and 6 which were not adjudicated completely by tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
