TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of the valuation of the assets submitted on September 22, 1998 ?" 2. The facts which are not in dispute. The respondent-assessee-company purchased a textile unit named "Ankur Textile" from Arvind Mills Ltd. with effect from May 18, 1996. After the acquisition of the undertaking in order to account various assets it its books of account, the assessee obtained a valuation report and recorded the value of each asset as per the value assigned to the said asset in the valuation report. In the return of income originally filed, the assessee-company claimed depreciation on the written down value of these assets appearing in the tax records of the seller on the date of sale. Vide letter dated September 22, 1998, a revised claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) has laid down that a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return was not permissible. Alternative submission was that if the Assessing Officer could not entertain the claim in the absence of revised return, no relief could be granted even by the Tribunal. The second alternative contention was to the effect that the impugned order of the Tribunal did not record any finding on the merits of the controversy and, therefore, also the impugned order of the Tribunal gave rise to the substantive question of law. 6.1 Elaborating on the first two contentions, it was submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the order dated Septembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... findings recorded in the earlier part of paragraph 9 of the order of the Tribunal categorically record that Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act will not apply in the case of the assessee. This is preceded by narration of facts and reasons as to why the said Explanation is not applicable. In the circumstances, the submission that there is no finding on the merits by the Tribunal is without any substance. 10. In so far as the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment is concerned, suffice it to state that the approach of the Tribunal is correct in law. The Tribunal has rightly noted that the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on September 20, 2000, had not been challenged by the Revenue and, therefore, it attained final....