ASST CIT 14(2), MUMBAI V. CHANDRPRABHA PROCESSORS, MUMBAI

ITA 3276/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1879 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SIDDARAMAPPA KAPPATANAVAR
• Section: 72(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3276/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 2005 ) ACIT 14(2), EARNEST HOUSE, R.NO.302, 3 RD FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. / VS. M/S. CHANDRAPRABHA PROCESSORS, C/O. MR. RAJIV DALAI, OPP. GOLDEN TOBACCO, BEHIND BOI, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI - 56. ./ PAN : AADFC1973F ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SIDDARAMAPPA KAPPATANAVAR, DR / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 02 .12.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .12.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 8.5.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 25, MUMBAI IN THE SECOND ROUND DATED 7.2.2014 FOR THE AY 2004 - 2005. IN THIS APPEAL, THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IN GRANTING RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM OF SET - OFF OF THE LOSS OF THE AY 2003 - 2004 AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE AY 2004 - 05 IS BEING QUESTIONED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER & PROCESSOR OF COTTON / YARN. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,93,410/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE ITAT. TRIBUNAL PASSED THE ORDER VIDE ITA NO.3957/M/2008 (AY 2004 - 05) SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14.1.2011. AO REPEATED THE SAID ADDITION. FURTHER, REGARDING THE CLAIM OF SET - OFF OF THE LOSS OF THE AY 2003 - 2 04, AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FO R SUCH SET - OFF AS THERE IS NO ORDER OF THE AO ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID LOSS IN THE AY 2003 - 2004. ON THIS ISSUE, CIT (A) EXAMINED THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2003 - 2004, EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72(1) AND SECTION 80 OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF LOSS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2003 - 200 4 AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE PASSED AN ORDER AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 6.2 AND 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. BEFORE US, NONE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE HELP OF THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, WE FIND PARAS 6.2 AND 6.3 OF THE CIT (A)S ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, WE FIN D IT RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE SAID PARAS 6.2 AND 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 6.2. FROM THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THE CASE BE FORE ME, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003 - 2004 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOSS HAS DULY BEEN REFLECTED. MOREOVER, SUCH LOSS HAS ALSO BEEN DETERMINED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 . FURTHER, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC CLAIM BY THE ASSES SEE AS IT SIMPLY STATES THAT ANY LOSS WHICH CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 71 SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARDED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OR GAINS OF SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAS SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS WHICH IN ITSELF IS A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSE E FOR SUCH LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO BE SET OFF AGAINST FUTURE INCOME. THEREFORE, AOS OBSERVATION THAT NO CLAIM IN RESPECT OF SUCH LOSS WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003 - 2004 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 6.3. HENCE, IN MY VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS. 31,22,183/ - FOR AY 2003 - 2004 AGAINST THE ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 6,93,410/ - FOR AY 2004 - 05 IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, CIT (A) RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 16 /12/2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI