TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails and particularly the fact of new provision made by the assessee during the year under consideration and then decide the issue as per law. Needless to say, the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. MAT provisions applicability in the case of the financial corporations as the accounts are not maintained as per Schedule-VI of the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Identical issue was decided by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case for the earlier assessment years 2017 (7) TMI 1196 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT as held question of law which has been framed is very clear whether the respondent assessee will be governed u/s 115JA read with Section 2(18)(a). On a plain reading as reproduced above and in view of forgoing conclusion and even as per statement of Mr. Mathur, it will not be covered. However, he has tried to take support of Section 43 which is misconceived. While interpreting the taxing statute, the Court has to rely upon the taxing statute and not any other provisions. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expenditure made on account of prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mera (CAs) For the Revenue : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) ORDER PER BENCH : These five appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-07, 10-11 to 13-14 and cross appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13 are directed against the respective orders of ld. CIT (A). First, we take up the assessee s appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 354/JP/2016 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II has erred in not accepting that the initiation of the proceeding u/s 148 of IT Act, 1961 was erroneous because the assessee has submitted all details/information and no new facts were available to the AO. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II has erred in holding that the Provision of Bad Debt Written off u/s 36(1)(vii)(a)(c) @ 5% of the income (para 3 of the order) should be calculated after allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, by wrongly interpreting the Act and not holding that the bad debts written off can only be set off to the extent of the balance in the Provisions for bad debts account (created under section 36(1)(vii)(a)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details/information and no new facts were available to the AO. 2.1. This ground is not pressed by the appellant, hence is dismissed. Thus it is clear that though the assessee raised this ground even before the ld. CIT (A), but the same was not pressed by the assessee. Thus it was dismissed by the ld. CIT (A). The ld. A/R has not disputed this fact recorded by the ld. CIT (A) that the assessee did not press this ground before the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the assessee has not raised any other grounds except the validity of reopening and the said issue was not pressed before the ld. CIT (A), thus the assessee cannot be permitted to by-pass the first appellate authority on the issue of validity of reopening of the assessment. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the only issue raised in this appeal by the assessee is validity of reopening, which was not pressed before the ld. CIT (A) amounts to abiding the decision of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue and then taking the same directly to this Tribunal cannot be entertained. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the IT Act by considering the closing balance in the Provision as credit balance. The ld. A/R has submitted that the AO has ignored the fact that during the year under consideration the assessee has made fresh provision though there are written back of provision in respect of some other accounts and the net closing balance in the NP Account is credited. However, when the assessee has made new provision during the year then the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act cannot be denied. He has referred to the details of the provisions made during the year as well as the provision written back by the assessee and submitted that due to the provisions written back by the assessee in some other accounts, the closing balance in the NP Account comes to a credit balance. Hence the ld. A/R has submitted that to the extent of new provision made by the assessee the claims should be allowed. 9.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that these details and facts were not brought on record by the assessee either during the assessment proceedings or during the proceedings before ld. CIT (A), therefore, these facts requires verification at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision for standard assets is not allowable by wrongly interpreting the Act. 4. The assessee craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeals or before the hearing. 13. The only issue raised in this appeal of the assessee is regarding disallowance of claim under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act which is identical as the issue raised for the assessment year 2011-12. The ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R has reiterated their contentions as made on this issue for the assessment year 2011-12. Both the parties have admitted the fact that the AO has disallowed the claim on identical ground as the assessee has not made any fresh provision during the year under consideration. Accordingly, in view of our finding on this issue for the assessment year 2011-12 this issue is set aside to the record of the AO for proper verification and examination and then decide afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA NO. 1063/JP/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 : 15. In this cross appeal, the revenue has raised the following grounds :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . D/R as well as the ld. A/R and considered the relevant material on record. The AO has made a disallowance of Rs. 3,01,764/- on account of rent paid of the earlier years to the Directorate of Estate, Government of Rajasthan for Bikaner House expenses, New Delhi, on the ground that these expenses pertain to the earlier years and, therefore, cannot be allowed for the year under consideration. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has allowed the claim of the assessee in para 3.3 as under :- 3.3. I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. This ground relates to an amount of Rs. 3,01,764/- on account of rent paid of earlier years to the Director Estates Government of Rajasthan, for Bikaner House expenses, in New Delhi. The Assessing Officer held the same to be prior period expenditure and also that since the assessee was following the accrual basis hence, the same should have been accounted for in the relevant year. In the present proceedings, it has been stated that this demand raised by the government in this year and the same crystallized during the year itself and so has been rightly accounted for. Since, the demand was raised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed by the AO in the earlier years in the income-tax proceedings, therefore, the assessee while computing the income has reduced to the said amount. The AO has made the addition of the said amount on the ground that the assessee has claimed the deduction under the provision for bad and doubtful debts. The ld. A/R has referred to the computation of income and submitted that once the amount was added in the Profit Loss account and was not allowed in the earlier years when the provision was made, then the same cannot be taxed during the year under consideration when it is written back by the assessee. 22.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee has not furnished the details as required by the authorities below to support and substantiate its claim. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 23. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we note that as per the Profit Loss account the assessee has duly credited this amount of Rs. 10,20,90,000/- in the Profit Loss account and thereafter in the computation of total income the assessee has reduced the said amount. It is also undisputed fact that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
