TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....007 declaring total income at Rs. 'Nil' after setting off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 226,10,69,195/-. However, the assessee has paid Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) of Rs. 17,08,71,924/-. 3. During the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenditure claim to the extent of Rs. 3,78,84,583/-. Since the assessee could not substantiate the said expenses with evidence, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 3,78,84,583/-. Similarly, he also made an addition of Rs. 2,85,57,298/- being the expenditure under the head "consumption of stores and space". The Assessing Officer made similar other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....057/Hyd/2011-12 dated 31.10.2012 in the assessee's case for the above year in granting relief of Rs. 17.07 crores. The Hon'ble ITAT in the above referred order specifically stated that "the CIT(A) grossly erred in not calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer as the assessee had produce details of expenses and also evidences like bills, vouchers etc., before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) ought to have remanded them to the Assessing Officer for his opinion under Rule 46A of the Act. In these circumstances, we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and decide the issue after examining the remand report of the Assessing Officer and in accordance with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ITAT and he cannot have more powers than ITAT. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. 111 ITR 1 that when a claim of exemption not made before ITO no material on record supporting such claim - AAC cannot entertain such claim in appeal proceedings. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of the Supreme Court that assessee was not entitled to claim exemption which was not made in the return as held in the case of CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd. by directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on Goodwill. In this case the assessee not claimed any depreciation on Goodwill in the Return of Income filed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer has not verified such evidence. Therefore, ITAT thought it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the CIT(A) and directed him to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the evidence filed by the assessee. We find that in the remand proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed an application for admission of additional evidence and also the additional evidence. However, the CIT(A) had called for the comments of the Assessing Officer only on the petition for admission for additional evidence and did not forward the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer has submitted his remand report only on the petition for admission of the additional evidence. Thus, it....