The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam V. M/s The Jeypore Sugars Company Ltd., Chagallu

ITA 269/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2592 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T L PETER
• Keywords: Revised return; Set aside

Judgement Text

ITA NO.269 OF 2010 JEYPORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD CHAGALLU PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 269/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. THE JEYPORE SUGARS COMPANY LTD., CHAGALLU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO:AAACT 9942 R APPELLANT BY: SHRI T.L. PETER, DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM A ND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE URGED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER T HE LEARNED CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SUM OF RS.54,23,721/-, BE ING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID ISSUE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. WHILE DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED ABOVE SAID SUM OF RS.54,23, 721/- UNDER THE HEAD EXCESS LOSS CLAIMED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION WITH THE REASONING THAT T HE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO ITA NO.269 OF 2010 JEYPORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD CHAGALLU PAGE 2 OF 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO RECTIFY THE SAID MISTAK E IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. HENCE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY SET OFF THE UNABSORBED LOSS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AT RS.17.09 CRORES AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE LOSS WAS DETERMINED AT RS.16.55 CRORES AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO SET OFF ONLY A S UM OF RS.16.55 CRORES AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE IT HAS RESULTED IN A EXCESS SET OFF OF RS.54,23,721/- CITED ABOVE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER STARTED TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION TREATING THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS THE STARTING POINT, HE WAS CONSTRAINED TO ADD TH E ABOVE SAID DIFFERENCE OF RS.54,23,721/-. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. 5. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE UNABSORBED LOSS THAT WAS BROUGHT FOR WARD FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOSS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05 WAS ASSESSED AT A LOWER FIGURE THAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE UNABSORBED LOSS SO REDUCED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE P ARTIES ON THIS POINT ALSO. HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE N OTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF AMOU NT OF UNABSORBED LOSS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SET OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-0 5, WHEREIN THE LOSS WAS INITIALLY DETERMINED IS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ITA NO.269 OF 2010 JEYPORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD CHAGALLU PAGE 3 OF 3 ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO SET OFF THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF UNABSORB ED LOSS THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND DECEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE:02-12-2010 COPY TO 1 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 VISAKHAPATNAM 2 M/S THE JEYPORE SUGARS COMPANY LTD., NO.6-69 CHAG ALLU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3 4. THE CIT CENTRAL, HYDERABAD THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM