TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rieved by the order dated 24th March,- 2014 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax -I Baroda, ('CIT') under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') setting aside the order under section 143(3) of the Act passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Baroda ('the learned AO') prefers an appeal against the same on the following grounds, which are without prejudice to each other: 1. The order passed by the learned CIT under section 263 of the Act is bad in law as the order of learned AO under section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is submitted that it be so held now and order passed under section 263 of the Act be quashed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejudice to the foregoing, assuming without accepting the finding of learned CIT that the advances of US$ 15,00,000 was not on revenue account, then the same has to be on capital account. Accordingly, the amount of US$ 15,00,000 writtenback by the appellant in the subsequent AY i.e. 2010-11 should not be taxed in the said year being capital in nature. It is submitted that it be so held now and direction be given to deduct the same while computing total income of A.Y. 2010-11. 5. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that Article 2 bearing page no. 5 of the agreement dated June 8, 2000 was inadvertently missed by the appellant while furnishing the copy of the aforesaid agreement before the learned AO and the learned CIT. Further, even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. Since the above advance amount was not actually paid and a kind of provisions only, the foreign exchange fluctuation loss claimed was required to be disallowed u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act. Failure to do so has resulted into under assessment " The Ld. CIT stated that the assessee claimed loss on foreign exchange amounting to Rs. 2,50,58,516/- on account of reinstatement of advances. The ld. CIT further stated that the advance amount was not actually paid and only kind of provision was made. The assessee's submitted that assessing officer at the time of hearing in assessment proceedings called for certain information/details with explanation for fall in the profit because of foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs. 2,74,18,861/-. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of mind. He also emphasized on the additional ground filed contended that the order passed by the ld. CIT u/s. 263 was bad in law as the show cause notice given by him was on a point other than the one for which he held that the order passed by the assessing officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. He also relied on the judicial pronouncements in the cases of CIT v/s G.K. Kabra 211 ITR 336, Colour craft vs. ITO 105 ITD 599, B.S. Sangwan v/s. ITO 53 Taxmann.com 402. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT. He also furnished written submission stating the issue related to noninquiry into nature of amount of US$15,00,000 land fluctuation loss on restatement. He also stated that assessing officer was not o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied Article 2 to the department which was the material conditions for receipt of US $ 1.5 million. He further stated that by virtue of Article 5 the liability to supply goods against the advance had expired on June 30, 2001. The Ld. CIT concluded that the amount received was never a liability and was primarily consideration for all the signatories to waive their claim on DOW. DOW never asked back for money no interest was provided as per the terms of the agreement. We find that because of not producing Article 2 by the assessee before the assessing officer he failed to make proper enquiries to ascertain the true nature of the amount received. We have also considered the contention of the Ld. counsel of the assessee stating that the assessin....