TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Baroda erred in law and on facts has held that the set of brought business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years has already been given in the Asst. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and that the appellant has wrongly claimed the set off. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Baroda has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the same and re-compute the claim of set off of unabsorbed business losses and depreciation. 2.1 The appellant submit that the unabsorbed brought forward losses and depreciation were apportioned to the appellant on the demerger of erstwhile GEB. Such unabsorbed brought forward losses and depreciation have been enhanced substantially as a result of decision of appeals in case of erstwhile GEB for the years the brought forward losses and depreciation pertain to. The Assessing Officer, however, has not passed the appeal effect orders in case of erstwhile GEB. On passing of such appeal effect orders for earlier years, the claim of brought forward losses and depreciation will increase' substantially. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Baroda has erred in law an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the following reasons: i. The assessee has set off the brought forward losses and the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 371,58,34,739.00 and 3,35,82,000.00 against the taxable Income in the year under consideration. However, the assessee has already claimed the set off of such brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation against the income for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. ii. The amount of dividend income of Rs. 11,60,62,000/- was reduced from the amount of the disallowances made under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule amounting to Rs. 148,83,18,280/-. Thus the effective disallowance was made for Rs. 137,22,56,280/- against the actual disallowance of Rs. 148,83,18,280/- iii. The amount of prior period Expenses was claimed amounting to Rs. 2,15,28,000/- against the prior period income. However the AO under the normal computation of income added the prior period expenses to the total income of the assessee. But the AO under MAT computation of income omitted to add such prior period expenses. In view of the above, the notice was served upon the assessee under section 263....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r item of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner of Income Tax to interfere U/s.263 with the order passed of the ITO, since such an order passed by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5.1 In the case of Swarup Vegetable Products vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1990) 187 ITR 412 (All), it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- It is beyond dispute that, U/s. 263 of the IT Act, the CIT does have the power to set aside the assessment order send the matter for a fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary, and that the order of the ITO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." 6. Failure on the part of the A.O. with regard to examination/verification of the vital issue discussed in Para 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3 (including sub-paras) herein above has rendered the assessment erroneous, in so far as, it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment is set-aside with the direction that the assessment should be framed afresh by the A.O. after prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss to the Revenue on account of reducing the dividend incomes against the disallowance of the expense under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. In the instant case the assessee has offered the exempted income to tax which needs to be reduced from the taxable income. As such the Revenue has to allow the rightful claims to the assessee despite the same were not claimed by the assessee. In such situation and circumstances, the CBDT circular Circular no 14(XL-35) dated 11-04- 1955 provides as under: (3) Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessee on who....