Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (4) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the CIT(A), on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, ought to have held that the rectification petition filed by the assessee was maintainable and he should have directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction of Rs. 39,83,677 in respect of bad debts which were written off in the relevant previous year. 2. The issue in appeal lies in a narrow compass of undisputed material facts. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 39,83,677, on account of bad debts, in the assessment year 2001-02. However, the claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the bad debt was not actually written off. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and held that the claim for bad debt was rightly declined for the assessment year 2001-02 since the amount was not actually written off by the assessee in the previous year relevant to that assessment year, and that the claim for bad debts has rightly not been allowed for the assessment year 2002-03 since the assessee has not claimed the same. There was no mistake in the assessments, according to the Assessing Officer, and the assessee was, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the matter. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The CIT(A), in a rather mechanical tone, concluded as follows : "In the present case, the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich has the approval of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this perspective, let us take a look at the scheme of section 153(3) of the Act. 6. Section 153(3) provides that time limits for assessments, reassessments and recomputations do not apply, inter alia, in the cases where "such assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or on any person in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250....". The effect of this provision is that notwithstanding any time limits contained in section 153, any orders to give effect to, or in consequence to, findings or directions contained in an order passed by the CIT(A) can be passed at any time. 7. As to what is the nature of 'f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der passed by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer should have passed the order recomputing and correctly assessing the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03. By not doing so, the Assessing Officer has not given effect to the 'finding' contained in the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2001-02, and, to that extent, the Assessing Officer's inertia is clearly a mistake apparent from record. This inaction is clearly contrary to the scheme of the Act which permits any assessment, reassessments and recomputation orders to give effect to, or in consequence of, any findings or directions not only in the CIT(A)'s order but also orders of the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of "any Court" in....