H L Warehousing Corporation, Meerut V. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 2386/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6345 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2921 & 2922/DEL/2015 A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. H.L. WAREHOUSING CORPORAT ION, WARD-1(3), MEERUT. 59, CHIPPI TANK. MEERUT PAN: AAAFH 9037 J AND ITA NO. 2386 & 2387/DEL/2015 A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 H.L. WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, 59, CHIPPI TANK, MEERUT. WARD-1(3), MEERUT. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.R. SONBHADRA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24-02-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 15-03-2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS, PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE A S WELL AS THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), RELATING TO A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05. REVENUES APPEALS (ITA NOS. 2921 & 2922/DEL/2015): 2. SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND, COMMON IN BOTH THE ASSESS MENT YEARS I.E. 2003-04 & 2004-05, IS AS UNDER: 2 WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. ITAT WHE N THE AO HAD BROUGHT A NEW FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD IN F.Y. 2002-03 THE SUPER STRUCTURE ON THE SAID PROPER TY AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION, WHEREAS THE RENT OF THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. 3. AT THE OUTSET WE MAY MENTION THAT, PRIMA FACIE, THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS . THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015, THE PR ESENT DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ARE DISMISSED ACCO RDINGLY. ASSESSEES APPEALS ITA NO. 2386/DEL/2015 ( A.Y. 2003-04):- 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FI LED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 3,55,460/-. THE ASSESSEES CA SE WAS REOPENED. THE AO DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 13 ,24,048/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 16,16,170/-. 5. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD, INTER ALIA, TAKEN A GROUND THAT HE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN NOT ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWAR D OF UNABSORBED LOSSES AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. 6. LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.2 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON THIS I SSUE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOSSES IN ITS COMP UTATION OF INCOME OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2 000, 2000-01, 2001-02 AND 2002-03. HOWEVER THE AR HAS NO T ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE SAME LOSSES WERE ACCE PTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEARS. IF THE LOSSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CO NVERTED INTO INCOME BY MAKING ADDITIONS, IT IS ONLY NATURAL THAT AS PER THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE WOULD BE NO 3 BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES WHICH REQUIRES SET OFF FROM CURRENT YEAR'S INCOME. BASED ON ABOVE DISCUSSION THE GROUND OF APPEAL NUMBER 3 IS DISMISSED . 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT EACH GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. THAT THE ID CIT IS NOT LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY JUS TIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED BUSINESS LO SSES PERTAINS TO A Y 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999- 2000, AY 20 00-01,AY 2001-02 AND AY 2002-03. 3. THAT THE ID CIT IS NOT LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY JUS TIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CARRIED FORWARD SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOS S PERTAINS TO AY 2002-03. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ADD AME NDS, ALTER AND/ OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DIR ECTIONS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE UNLESS THE LOSS IS DETERMINED BY AO, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. LOSS CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER SECTIONS 70 TO 79 OF THE I.T. ACT. AS THE MATTER HA S BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY PREJUDICE BEING CAUS ED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E IN AY 2004-05. THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS AS IN AY 2003-04, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 10. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS AS WELL AS ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15-03-2016. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15-03-2016. MP: C OPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR