AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Income-tax, Chennai-I, Chennai, on 16-3-2011. 2. The assessee is a company engaged in hire purchasing, leasing, bill discounting, money changing, Forex advisory services and travels. The return of income for the impugned assessment year was filed by the assessee company on a loss of Rs. 53,68,535/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, accepting the loss returned by the assessee. 3. On perusal of the assessment records, the Commissioner of Income-tax found that the Assessing Officer has not examined the relevant aspects and significance of major issues involved in the assessment. The assessee has written off bad debts to the tune of Rs. 5.49 crores. The Commissioner of Income-tax observed that this was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the proposals and passed the revision order, setting aside the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority. He set aside the assessment with a direction to the Assessing Officer to enquire about all the above three issues pointed out by him and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. 5. It is against the above that the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal read as below:- "1. The Commissioner of Income-tax erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and set aside the assessment back to the file of the Assessing Officer without giving finding in the issues mentioned in the show cause notice. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iability u/s 41(1) and 28(iv). 8. The Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have appreciated that there is no remission of liability its only a minimum guaranteed amount to be paid to the bank and the bank agreeing to accept whether additional amount receivables from the client. The loan given by the bank is on the capital field any waiver cannot be considered as income either u/s 41(1) or 28(iv)." 7. We heard Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, and Shri S.Moharana, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax appearing for the Revenue. 8. The assessee has written off Rs. 5.49 crores as bad debts and claimed it as deduction in computing its income. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a reply to the Assessing Officer explaining the issues of bad debts written off and short term capital gains. 10. But, there is nothing on record to see whether the Assessing Officer has asked anything about the other two issues to the assessee or the assessee had explained those two issues before the Assessing Officer. Those two issues are the differential amount of Rs. 3.59 crores and the differential amount between Rs. 89.86 crores and Rs. 43 crores, both arising out of the tripartite agreement of assignment of receivables in favour of the Special Purpose Vehicle URMPL and the consortium of lending banks. 11. The question of the differential amount between Rs. 89.86 crores and Rs. 43 crores is a very predominant issue that should have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... below:- "3. The dues of the FIRST PART amounting to Rs. 89.05 crs to the THIRD to FOURTEENTH PARTS is hereby crystallized and fixed at Rs. 43 crores (with the application of interest to cease from 1st July 2005)." Thereafter, the agreement speaks about the modalities of the payment of the sum of Rs. 43 crores by the Special Purpose Vehicle URMPL to the consortium of banks. 12. Clause 7 of the tripartite agreement reads as below:- "7. The Parties agree that on the SECOND PART paying the THIRD PART the aforesaid sum of Rs. 43 crores in terms of Clause 5 above and interest in terms of Clause 6 above, all dues, claims, demands and liabilities of the THIRD to FOURTEENTH PARTS against the SECOND PART shall cease and the same sh....