TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 2059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following Grounds of appeal :- "1.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer to re-open the assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the appellant's case and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2.(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder." 3. In this appeal, the substantive dispute arises from an addition of Rs. 2,15,03,988/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking Sec. 41(4) of the Act. 4. In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee-company filed its return of income originally on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs. 221,78,00,932/-, which was subject to a scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.1.2005 determining the total income at Rs. 402,89,50,550/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.3.2008, as according to the Assessing Officer certain income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In the ensuing assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and allowed and therefore it is a recovery", which has been rightly taxed by the Assessing Officer. With regard to the sums of Rs. 26,00,000/- and Rs. 75,00,000/- pertaining to M/s. Madusudan Leasing and M/s. Apple Finance respectively, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to go by the final status of these two amounts as the issue of such bad debts was pending before the Tribunal and observed that if the claim of bad debt in the earlier years was accepted, only then the recovery made during the year would be taxed. Similarly, with regard to the sum of Rs. 64,00,000/- pertaining to Premier Paper Boards, he observed that the assessee was allowed the bad debt in preceding year and therefore the amount needs to be taxed in this year du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequent to the impugned decision of the CIT(A). The learned representative pointed out that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the bad debt written-off in Assessment Year 2002-03, and which have been recovered in the instant year, could also not be taxed u/s 41(4) of the Act as there was no tax liability on the assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03 as its income was exempt. The learned representative pointed out that the fresh claim is within the four corners of law and, in any case, it has sprung-up as a consequence of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 12.9.2012 (supra) in the case of the assessee. Therefore, such an additional claim be admitted for adjudication since the necessary facts are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act. Be that as it may, as of now, the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 12.9.2012 in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03 (supra) subsists, which has ruled that any income, profits and gains received by the assessee is exempt from income tax upto Assessment Year 2002-03. The necessary implication is that for the Assessment Year 2002-03, no income has been computed under Chapter IV - Part 'D' - Profits and gains of business or profession'; which, inter-alia, contains Sec. 36(1)(vii) dealing with bad debts. Thus, it could not be said that assessee has been allowed any deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts upto the Assessment Year 2002-03. Therefore, under these circumstances, the p....