2019 (9) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2,78,25,006/- made under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,. ii. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and / or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its e-return on 21.01.2014 declaring NIL income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") dated 02.09.2014 was issued. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 29.5.2015 and various information were called for in response to which the Ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and submitted the documents / evidences in support of its claim a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd., 343 ITR 408, which the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon in his impugned order and deleted the addition in dispute, which does not need any interference. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute vide para no. 9.1 to 10 at page no. 7 to 9 of the impugned order. For the sake of clarity, we are reproducing the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as under:- "9.1 Appellant company was incorporated in 1991. Due to heavy losses, Assessee was declared a sick industria....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst the same. 9.2 Appellant has submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,78,25,006/- is outstanding in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2013 and the debts is payable by the appellant company as the debts has not been written off in the books of the accounts. 9.3 I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the Appellant. Appellant is a sick industrial unit and BIFR has recommended for winding up of the company. At present, the matter is sub-judice before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) which has stayed the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court till further orders. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be ....