TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal before the Tribunal was directed against the order dated November 3, 2004, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short "the appellate authority") whereby the appellate authority set aside the order dated July 30, 2004, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time and with their assistance, gone through the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. When the appeal was admitted, vide order dated November 19, 2007, substantial questions of law were not formulated by this court. The substantial questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal read t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....115JA ?" It appears, for the assessment year 1999-2000, the respondent-assessee, i.e., Canara Bank, filed a return of income on December 30, 1999. After processing the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the case was selected for scrutiny and an order under section 143(3) was passed on March 28, 2002. Consequently, an order under section 263 was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, dated October 10, 2002. As per this order, the assessment under section 143(3) was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to redo the assessment on certain points indicated therein. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee calling for specific details on the issues that find place in the order dated O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debts written off under clause (vii) of section 36(1) which are the provision made under clause (viia) of section 36(1). The Assessing Officer has disallowed the entire bad debts of Rs. 467.10 crores as per the discussion in the body of the assessment order applying the provisions of section 36(2)(v)." The issue was, however, not answered by the Commissioner and he simply recorded that "the issue is treated as dropped after considering the assessee's submissions". There does not appear to be any dispute that the question of disallowance of bad debts was already concluded, vide order dated March 28, 2002, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act. Though the order of the Assessing Officer dated March 28, 2002, wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the order dated March 28, 2002, had attained finality, and, therefore, it was not open to the appellate authority to consider the issue of disallowance of bad debts and allow the appeal. This position, though has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, he submitted that he has no objection for remand of the matter to the first appellate authority to consider the issue of disallowance of bad debts afresh including the contentions urged by Mr. K. V. Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue before us and as recorded in this order. We are saying so in view of the fact that when the Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the first appellate authority before the Tribunal, they had raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....034/01/2011-Ad.I. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said memorandum read thus : "2. Instances have come to notice wherein a few PSUs/departments have approached tribunals/courts to reopen the cases in which permission to litigate was denied by CoD. In a few cases, public sector undertaking/Departments have filed petitions in the High Courts. In an isolated case, a special leave petition (SLP) has also been filed in the hon'ble Supreme Court by an organization against the High Court decision seeking clarification of the order dated February 17, 2011, of the hon'ble Supreme Court, although the High Court had declined to reopen the case. 3. Since the matter has been....