2015 (11) 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

....in I. T. A. No. 225/Del/2011 for the assessment year 2007- 08 whereby the assessee's appeal against an order dated November 2, 2010, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereafter "the CIT(A)") was allowed. 2. The principal controversy involves the taxability of a sum of Rs. 1,26,49,144, being the amount waived by the mutual funds/financial institutions/debenture holders as a concession for the financial restructuring of the assessee. 3. The assessee had filed a return of income for the assessment year 2007- 08 declaring nil income after adjustment of brought forward losses of Rs. 7,52,60,093. The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (hereafter "the AO") passed the assessm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wed the claim of the assessee and further held that in cases where no further investigation into facts was necessary, the assessee was entitled to make a fresh claim before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that as the assessee had not made a claim before the Assessing Officer in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,26,49,144, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer could not be impugned before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned counsel appearing for the assessee disputed the aforesaid contention and drew the attention of this court to an office note issued by the Assessing Officer, which indicated that the assessee had, in fact, made a claim for the w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Tribunal had, accordingly, allowed the claim of the assessee. 11. The Tribunal had further noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had considered the appellant's claim on the merits and that action had not been challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that under the circumstances, the Revenue's contention could not be upheld. The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that since the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was in its favour, there was no question of the Revenue filing an appeal and the observation made by the Tribunal in this regard was ex facie erroneous. 12. In our view, the observation made by the Tribunal was with respect to the Revenue's contention that the assessee'....