2013 (9) TMI 1281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. 2. In both the appeals, similar Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue read as under :- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in granting relief of the assessee in respect of claim which neither originated from the return of income nor form the assessment order of the year under consideration. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in arriving at the correctness of a claim not emanating from the assessment record or assessment order without granting an opportunity to the Assessing Officer." 3. In view of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground pertains to the request of the appellant to reduce the amount of Rs. 29,17,895/- out of the written-back amounts offered for taxation in A.Y. 2008-09 which was added by the Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2006-07. The learned counsel of the appellant had submitted that while the amount of Rs. 29,17,895/- was taxed in the year 2006-07, the same was not reduced from the income offered u/s. 41(1) of the Income-tax Act in 2008-09 as this was part of the same. The contention of the appellant after verification is found to be correct and accordingly the Assessing Officer is directed to reduce Rs. 29,17,895/- taxed in A.Y. 2006-07 from the total income. Accordingly, the additional ground is allowed." 6. Against the aforesaid action of the CIT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the return of income filed. Ostensibly, taxing of same income twice is untenable and needs to be corrected. Therefore, the action of the CIT(A) in-principle cannot be faulted. The plea of the Revenue that such a claim could not be entertained by the CIT(A) because it was not arising from the assessment order or the return of income, cannot distract from the fact that no income can be taxed twice. In our considered opinion, the circumstances explained by the CIT(A) fully justify the admission of such claim, and moreover the CIT(A) has allowed the claim "after verification". There is no material led by the Revenue to show that such a finding of the CIT(A) is incorrect or is not based on any material. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable....