9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order u/s 143(3) on the grounds that order u/s 143(3) is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to interest of revenue. b. The PCIT erred in arriving at the conclusion that claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) needs examination and verification not appreciating the fact that claim of allow ability of bad debts was verif ied and that the same issue was subject matter of appeal in earlier years and that the same having been allowed in earlier years by the CIT(A) and for assessment year 2011-12 the claim was allowed by Hon'ble ITAT and as such the action u/s 263 Is uncalled for. c. The appellant submits that order u/s 263 needs to be cancel led. 2. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted the details before the A.O. The Ld. AR submitted the details of the A.Y 2012-13 & 2013-14 were against disallowance of bad debts claim, on appeal the CIT(A) has allowed the claim u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The assessee has explained in the revision proceedings that the bad debts claim issue has been verified year to year and deduction was allowed. But the Pr.CIT has dealt on the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and is of the opinion that the assessee has not followed procedure laid as per the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and the Auditors certificate in respect of bad debts was not provided. Hence the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act should not be allowed. The Pr.CIT dealt on the explanation (2) to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee assessment years orders at item 11&15 of the notice. The assessee has filed a reply to notice U/sec142(1) of the Act on 08-12-2017 referred at page 16 and 17 in particular to s.no.12 and the documents in support of claim of deduction which includes bad debts, contingent provision for standard asset and computer software. The Ld.AR emphasized that the Honble ITAT and CIT(A) in earlier years of has allowed the bad debts claim. 6. The assessee has furnished the details in the course of assessment in lieu of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and further the claim of the assessee has been accepted in earlier year. In case the claim was not allowed by the revenue, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal and the direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the relief in ITA No. 1112/Mum/2014 A.Y 2011-12. The Ld. DR submitted that the department has challenged the relief granted to assesee before the Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending. We Considering the overall facts, circumstances, ratio of the judicial decision and the details submitted in the course of hearing are of the view that the if any query is raised in the assessment proceedings and it was responded by the assessee, mere fact that it is not dealt with by the A.O. in the order cannot implied that there is no application of mind. Hence, the Pr.CIT action cannot be acceptable as the order passed by the A.O. does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, we set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
