TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal filed by the Revenue was served upon the assessee's erstwhile consultants (M/s Shilpi Agarwal & Co., Chartered Accountants) who forwarded the same to the assessee. Thereafter the assessee directed him to draft the Cross Objection which was again sent by him for signature of the Director of the assessee who is in United States. In all this process there was a delay of 64 days which was unintentional and therefore it may be dondoned. The ld. DR on the other hand, objected to the condonation of delay. 3. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case we are of the opinion that delay of filing of the Cross Objection was due to sufficient cause. We, therefore, condon the delay in filing of Cross Objection and admit the Cross Objection for hearing on merits. 4. In this appeal of the Revenue following grounds are raised: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the adoption of negative value could have resulted in an income lower than the returned income, which is contrary to the view taken by Apex Court in the case of M/s Goetze Reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). 2. Whether on the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipts offered by the assessee from this 2 contracts are as under: Cairn Energy Contract - Rs. 1,11,45,78,365/- ONGC Contract - Rs. 1,53,16,71,223/- Total - Rs. 2,64,62,49,589/- 7. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed vide letter dated 23.10.2012 and 02.11.2012 the modification of the receipts from these two companies. The relevant facts and the finding of the AO in this regard reads as under: "6. During the course of assessment proceedings vide reply dated 23.10.2012 filed on 02.11.2012, AR of the assessee has requested for considering revised computation of income wherein assessee has requested for considering revenues in respect of ONGC contract as 1,43,85,87,412/- as against Rs. 1,53,16,71,223/- under the claim that there were certain liquidated damages amount to INR 9,30,83,811/- which were inadvertently not considered by the assessee while preparing tax return. In respect of Cairn Energy India contract it has been stated that gross revenues were reported less on account of exchange rate difference and should have been taken at Rs. 1,17,36,58,416/-. Thus, according to the assessee gross receipts under both the contract, should have been Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and the Ld. AO had no power to do what the Appellant had wanted him to do. To this extent this Appellate Authority finds it difficult to be persuaded otherwise by the Ld. AR. However, what is clear is that while the AO adopted the positive figure (which would enhance the income) he ignored the negative figure (which would bring the taxable income below the returned income). In the interests of justice the benefit of negative figure must be given to the extent of the positive figure so that the addition made to the returned income would be entirely wiped out. Thus the Ld. AO is directed to compute the income tax payable on the income returned by the assessee." 9. The Revenue aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) is in appeal before us while the assessee also aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) is in Cross Objection before us. 10. At the time of hearing before us it is submitted by the ld. Counsel that the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. would have no application to the case of the assessee because in the case under appeal before us. The assessee is not making any fresh claim but the assessee is only correcting the figure of receipts from C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laiming refunds and reliefs rests with the assessee. AS IMPOSED BY LAW even then the Board has directed the officers to draw the attention of the assessees in respect of any refunds or reliefs to which they are eligible, which they have not claimed for some reason or the other. The Board has also given few examples in this regard and has specifically clarified that, these examples are not exhaustive. Further, the Board also issued Circular F. No. 81/27/65-IT(B), dated 18th May, 1965 defining the duties of P.R.Os. in providing assistance to the public . In this circular, the Board has also advised the P.R.O. to visit the Government/commercial establishments to provide them assistance in filing correct returns and making eligible claims. These Circulars issued by the Board almost 4-5 decades before cast a duty on the assessing authorities to collect only the legitimate tax. Starting from late 1980s, the Government has focussed as voluntary compliance by the assessees and, therefore, Government has reduced the number cases selected for compulsory scrutiny and has also reduced the tax rates. This policy of the Government has resulted into higher tax revenues and simplification of laws.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we hold that the assessing officer is bound to assess the correct income and for this purpose, the assessing officer may grant reliefs/refunds suo motu or can do so on being pointed out by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for which assessee has not filed revised return, although, as per law, the assessee is required to file the revised return. Having stated so, in our view, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), having co-terminus powers with the powers of assessing officer and the fact that appellate proceedings are the continuation of original proceedings, should have entertained the claim of assessee and allowed if other conditions of the provisions of the law were satisfied. In this view of the matter, we accept both the grounds of the assessee and direct the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the claim of the assessee at the revised figures on merits and decide the same according to the provisions of Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act after hearing the assessee. Thus, this ground of the assessee stands accepted." 13. We entirely agree with the above observation of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to determine the correc....