, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1792/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) THE VELLORE TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT CO- OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., 142, AVIN, ARCOT ROAD,SATHUVACHARI, VELLORE - 632 009. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, VELLORE. PAN: AAAAT0079R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.BALAMURUGAN, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SUPRIO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH AUGUST, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9 TH AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 13, CHENNAI DATED 21.03.2016 IN ITA NO.217/CIT(A)- 13/AY2011-12 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250 (6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF ELIGIBLE CARRY FORWARD 2 ITA NO.1792/MDS/2016 UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. II) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ADDING THE GRATUITY RESERVE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PURCH ASE AND SALE OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DECLARIN G NIL INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRU TINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) O F THE ACT ON 21.03.2014 WHEREIN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAI NED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES WERE NOT CO NSIDERED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE HA D 3 ITA NO.1792/MDS/2016 OMITTED TO MENTION THE SAME BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER AND ALSO IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS THEREF ORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NO T CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT, SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELATED TO LEGAL ISSUES AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE ENTIRE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NO VO CONSIDERATION. 4 ITA NO.1792/MDS/2016 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 9 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) ! # /JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! /CHENNAI, % /DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2016 SOMU '( )( /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. * ( ) /CIT(A) 4. * /CIT 5. ( - /DR 6. /GF .