TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of waiver of loan payable by the appellant to Canara Bank, without going into the merits of such claim? II. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in not appreciating that the earlier remand order of the ITAT was a de novo remand order and not specific to any issue and therefore the appellant could have raised a fresh claim before the AO in the set aside proceedings?" 2. We have heard learned counsels and proceed to answer the aforesaid questions. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order in respect of the assessment year 2002-03 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2005. Eventually, on 07.01.2009, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the matter to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d assets. The approach adopted by lower authorities in making these additions is highly unjustified and regrettable. The lower authorities being quasi judicial authorities, are under obligation to be fair and judicious. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the present assessment being excessive, harsh and arbitrary, deserves to be set aside, restored back to the file of AO to reframe the same afresh. Assessee is willing to produce the books of account which are to be considered after affording an opportunity to the assessee. In an eventuality where best judgment assessment is inevitable, then fair and reasonable approach as warranted by law has to be adopted by lower authorities, which the AO will keep in mind w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd round of assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer, have not been made in present round of proceedings. Thus the additions which are agitated by the assessee in first and second round proceedings and restored back to the Assessing Officer, no longer existing in this appeal, which means the Assessing Officer has allowed relief to the assessee on those issues. 9. But in remand proceeding before the Assessing Officer, consequent to the second order of the Tribunal dated 10/03/2011, the assessee made a fresh claim for allowing deduction of Rs. 1,36,45,525/- being the liability of the Canara bank, written back by the company as same should not be treated as income of the assessee. The question before us is whether the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in view of the aforesaid, the finding returned by the Tribunal in the impugned order that the remand to the Assessing Officer vide the earlier order dated 10.03.2011 was limited, is incorrect. Reliance placed on Sehet Synthetics P. Ltd. (supra) was also misplaced in view of the complete remand in the present case. He further submits that, in fact, the Assessing Officer had also made fresh additions while passing the fresh assessment order, precisely on the same basis that a fresh assessment was being framed. Else, the Assessing Officer could not have made fresh additions of Rs. 40,045/- towards late deposit of employees contribution towards PF and ESI, and could not have disallowed set-off of the brought forward losses to the extent of Rs....