TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It appears that the assessment order did not contain the computation of income under Section 115-J of the Act. The Assessee had computed a loss at Rs.46,65,746/- while determining the book profit for the purposes of Section 115-J of the Act but while arriving at this figure, the Assessee brought forward depreciation or loss that was wrongly calculated. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly issued a notice to the Assessee under Section 263 of the Act on 29^th November, 1991 to show cause why the assessment be not set aside and the profit correctly computed under Section 115-J of the Act. 5. After hearing the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 1989-90 (the year under consideration). 8. The Assessing Officer rejected this contention of the Assessee on the ground that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act on 15^th January, 1992 was on the limited issue of computing the profit under Section 115-J of the Act and, therefore, it was not possible for him to look into the issue raised by the Assessee. 9. The consequence of the assessment order passed on 16^th March, 1992 read with the assessment order for the assessment year 1990-91 was that the Assessee was not entitled to claim the expenditure of Rs.41,14,955/- in the assessment year 1990-91, nor could it claim that expenditure in the assessment year 1989-90. 10. Feeling aggrieved by this decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on that day and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not right in refusing to entertain the claim of the Assessee which arose out of the order passed in respect of the Assessee for the assessment year 1990-91. 13. Against the order passed by the CIT (A) on 31^st July, 2002, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and that appeal was dismissed. It is under these circumstances that the Revenue is before us in appeal under Section 260A of the Act. 14. We find that apart from anything else, the Assessee is placed in a rather piquant situation. It is not entitled to a deduction for the expenditure of Rs.41,14,955/- for the assessment year 1990-91 on the ground that it is referable to an earlier assessment year but the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the view that when the assessee made a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the Income-tax Officer to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. The present case is not a case where the assessee made a claim with reference to a matter which was concluded and has become final in the original assessment proceedings. But, on the other hand, it was found in the subsequent year's assessment proceedings that the liability of the assessee had accrued when the suit for injunction filed by the assessee was dismissed by the City Civil Court, Madras, and in view of the subsequent event that the deduction might relate to the present assessment year, the assessee made a c....