The
appeal filed by the Revenue arose from the order passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee, Sri
Lakshmi Electro Smelters Private Limited, is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and sale of ferro alloys.
The
return of income for the relevant assessment year was filed declaring a nominal
income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax
Act, 1961, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹1.25 crore
on account of outstanding sundry creditors, being advance received towards
supply of machinery, based on the concession made by the assessee. The
Assessing Officer also denied the claim of set-off of unabsorbed
depreciation and carry-forward business losses, holding that the assessee
had failed to substantiate the claim.
Aggrieved
by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer ought
to have allowed set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against business income and
that the addition relating to advances received against machinery could not be
taxed under section 41(1), but required examination under section 51(1) of the
Act.
The
Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions, set aside the
issue relating to set-off of unabsorbed depreciation to the file of the
Assessing Officer for fresh examination. However, the issue relating to
taxability of sundry creditors under section 51(1) remained unadjudicated.
The
Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the
Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have restored the issue of unabsorbed
depreciation in the absence of returns for earlier years and merely on the
basis of written submissions.
After
hearing the rival submissions and examining the record, the Tribunal observed
that the Commissioner (Appeals) had only remanded the issue of set-off of
unabsorbed depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Such
a direction, in the opinion of the Tribunal, did not cause any prejudice to
the Revenue, as the matter was yet to be examined on merits by the
Assessing Officer.
Accordingly,
the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue and dismissed
the appeal. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as
withdrawn.
Source Link- https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1767847239-FmVEpf-1-TO.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general
information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify
the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been
prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment