THE EXCHANGE AGENCIES, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 35(5), NEW DELHI

ITA 3451/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2909 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S ANANT
• Assessee Lawyers: LALITHA KRISHNAMURTHY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

0 PAGE NO 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3451/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE EXCHANGE AGENCIES, VS. ITO, WARD 35(5), 13, ALIPUR ROAD, NEW DELHI CIVIL LINE, DELHI 110 054 (PAN: AAAFT0754C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SMT. LALITHA KRISHNAMURTHY, C A REVENUE BY : SH. B.S. ANANT, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.3.2018 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED SET OFF T OF THE BALANCE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,41,971/- BROUGHT FOR WARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF R S. 3,34,803/- BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 466/- BROUGHT FORWARD F ROM PAGE NO 2 OF 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WITH THE INCOME OF THIS YEAR, AS T HE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE YEARS CLAIMING SUCH AMOUNTS AS DEPRECIATION AND SUPPORTED BY THE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE YEAR, HAD SINCE ATTAINED FINALITY UNDER THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY T HESE AMOUNTS FORM PART OF CURRENT YEAR DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF SECT ION 32(2) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE RESULTANT BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 3,02,207/- (3,75,293 73,086) BROUG HT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 CONSEQUENT TO APPEAL EFFECT ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE ACT DATED 11.12.2012 WITH THE IN COME OF THIS YEAR, AS THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR CL AIMING SUCH AMOUNT AS A BUSINESS LOSS AND SUPPORTED BY THE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE YEAR HAD SINCE ATTAINED FINALITY UNDER THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 466/- BROUGHT FORWARDS F ROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CONSEQUENT TO APPEAL EFFECT ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE ACT DATED 13.1.2012 AND WHICH FORMS PAR T OF HIS RECORDS, WITH THE INCOME OF THIS YEAR. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED AO TO DISPOSE OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR AY 2007 -08 THAT HAS BEEN PENDING WITH THE AO SINCE 10.6.2013, DETERMINE THE B USINESS LOSS AND PAGE NO 3 OF 8 UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE YEAR AND THEREAFTER GI VE HIS REPORT TO HIM FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE A PPELLANT HAD NOT FILED COMPLETE EVIDENCES LIKE ITR COPY CLAIMING DEPRECIAT ION, BUSINESS LOS, ASSESSMENT ORDER COPY AND APPELLATE ORDER COPY OF TH ESE WERE DULY FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY LETTERS DATED 28.6.20 17 AND 1.3.2018. 6. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PRE JUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 7. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND O R WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT D ISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, SMT. LALITHA KRISHNAMURTHY, CA HAS FILED THE SYNOPSIS / WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 8 IN WHICH SHE HAS NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). SHE HAS ALSO N ARRATED THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2 009-10 AND REQUESTED THAT THE PRAYER MADE IN THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED, AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS NARRATED THEREIN AND MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE. PAGE NO 4 OF 8 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR DS, ESPECIALLY THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSE SSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, I AM REPRODUCING THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS/SUB MISSIONS AS UNDER:- 1.1 FACTS AS PER ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/254 DATED 21.12.2016 ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961 WAS C OMPLETED ON 29.11.2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.60,11,568/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.13,10, 582/- (ORDER PLACED AT PAGES 258 TO 265 OF PB). IN ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES: 1.2 THE ASSESSEE APPEALED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFO RE ID. CIT(A). THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 268/11- 12 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2013 (ORDER PLACED AT PAGES 266 TO 291 OF PB) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF ID. CIT(A) WAS AS UNDER: 1.3 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE HONBLE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF ID. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,060/-, RS.24,334/-, DISALLOWANCE OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 10,52,533/- AND TA KING RETURNED INCOME OF RS.13,10,582/-. HONBLE ITAT DEC IDED THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.06.2015 IN ITA NO. 3352/DEL/2013 (ORDER PLACED AT PAGES 292 TO 297 OF PB). HONBLE ITAT DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.93,060/- AND RS.24,334/- AND DECIDED IN FAVOU R OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE ISSUE OF BROUGHT FOR WARD LOSSES OF RS.10,52,533/- AND TAKING RETURNED INCOME AT RS.13,10,582/- HONBLE ITAT SET ASIDE THE ISSUE S TO S. NO. ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT 1 INCENTIVE / COMMISSION EXPENSES DISALLOWED U/S 40A(IA) RS.45,58,252/ - 2 VEHICLE EXPENSES DISALLOWED RS.1,18,400/ - 3 OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES DISALLOWED RS.24,334/ - 4 BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES RS.10,52,533/ - S. NO. ADDITIONS / ISSUES AMOUNT RELIEF / DELETED BY ID. CIT(A) CONFIRMED BY ID. CIT(A) 1 INCENTIVE / COMMISSION EXPENSES DISALLOWED U/S 40A(IA) RS.45,58,252/ - RS.45,58,252/ - NIL 2 VEHICLE EXPENSES DISALLOWED RS.L,18,400/ - RS.25,340/ - RS.93,060/ - 3 OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES DISALLOWED RS.24,334/ - NIL RS.24,334/ - 4 BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES RS.10,52,533/ - NIL RS.10,52,533/ - PAGE NO 5 OF 8 THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH. 1.4 IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT SUBMITTED TO AO THAT THE DOCUMENTATION / INFORMATION REQUIRED WAS ALREADY ON RECORD FOR HIS KIND CONSIDERATION. 1.5 AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/25 4 OF THE ACT BY REVISING THE RETURNED INCOME TO RS.119,830/- AS DECLARED BUT DISALLOWED THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.10,52,533/- AND HIS FINDINGS IS REPRODUCED BELOW: IN COMPUTATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAMED FOLLOWING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND ADJUSTED AGAINST THE INCOMEFOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION: ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS AVAILABLE, IT HAS BEEN F OUND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH LOSS AVAILABLE FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE INCO ME FOR THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED AND EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD, HENCE LOSS OF RS.10,52,533 / - (3,75,293+6,77,240) IS DISALLOWED. 1.6 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE APPEALED THE MATTER BEFORE I D. CIT(A) AND HIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 7. DECISION 7.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. SIMPLE POINT IN THIS C ASE WAS DETERMINATION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINE SS LOSS COMINGFROM EARLIER YEARS. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO TH E ORDER OF THE DON BLE ITAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW SET O FF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AMOUNTING TO RS.10,52,533/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS IN THE POSSE SSION OFTHE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE TD. COUNSELFOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS PERTAINING TO AY 2005-06 IS SUPPORTED BY THE ITK ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO AY 2006-07 AND IN SUCCES SIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS PROVED BY THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD SATISFIED HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAI M. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ABOVE INQ UIRY PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION 2006 - 07 RS.3,41,971 / - 2007 - 08 RS.3,75,293/ - RS.3,34,803/ - 2008 - 09 RS.466/ - TOTAL RS. 3,75,293 RS.6,77,240/ - PAGE NO 6 OF 8 AY2006-07 TO AY2008-09, THE PURCHASE BILLS COULD HA VE BEEN EASILY PROVIDED TO HIM. 7.2 THE APPELLANT HAS NOTFILED COMPLETE EVIDENCES LIKE COPY OF ITK SHOWING BUSINESS LOSS, CLAIMING DEPRECIATION, COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND COPY OF ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS , IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO ASCERTAIN UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINES S LOSS COMINGFROM EARLIER YEARS. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OFTHE APPELLANT IN THE ABS ENCE OF ABOVE DOCUMENTS. HENCE, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 1.7 AGGRIEVED THE APPELLANT IS NOW BEFORE THE HONBLE I TAT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1.THAT THE CD(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE BALANCE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,41,971 / - BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,34,803 /- BROUGHT FORWARDFROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND THE UNABSO RBED DEPRECIATION OFRS.466/ - BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008- 09 WITH THE INCOME OF THIS YEAR, AS THE RETURNS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE YEARS CLAIMING SUCH AMOUNTS AS DEPRECIATION A ND SUPPORTED BY THE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE YEAR, HAD SINCE ATTAINE DFINALITY UNDER THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THESE AMOUNTSFORM PART OFCURRE NT YEAR DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE CD (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED SET OFF OF TH E RESULTANT BUSINESS LOSS OF R S.3,02,207/ - (3,75,293 73,086) BROUGHT FORWARD F ROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 CONSEQUENT TO APPEAL EFFECT ORDER PASS ED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT DATED 11.12.2012 WITH THE INCOME OF THIS YEAR, AS THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR CLAIMIN G SUCH AMOUNT AS A BUSINESS LOSS AND SUPPORTED BY THE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE YEAR HAD SINCE ATTAINED FINALITY UNDER THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE ALHWED SET OFF OF THE UNABSORBED DEPREDATION OF RS.466/ - BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CONSEQUENT TO APPEAL EFFECT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT DATED 13.01.201 2 AND WHICH FORMS PART OF HIS RECORDS, WITH THE INCOME OF THIS YEAR. 4. THAT THE CTT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED AO TO DISPO SE OFF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR AY 2 007-08 THAT HAS BEEN PENDING WITH THE AO SINCE 10.06.2013, DETERMIN E THE BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPREDATION OF THE YEAR AND THE REAFTER GIVE HIS PAGE NO 7 OF 8 REPORT TO HIM FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 5. THAT THE CTT(A) HAD ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD NOT FILED COMPLETE EVIDENCES LIKE ITR COPY CLAIMING DEPREDATION, BUSINESS LOSS, ASSESSMENT ORDER COPY AND APPELLATE ORDER COPY AS THESE WERE DULY FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY LETTERS DATED 28.06.2017 AND 01.03.2018. 6. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUTPREJUD ICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 7. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 2.0 SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT THE ITR / COMPUTATION OF INCOME REFLECTING THE UAD AND BUSINESS LOSS FOR EACH OF THE RELEVANT YEARS AS PER PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AR E GIVEN BELOW (THE PAGE REFERENCE IS TO PAPER BOOK FILED IN ITAT): 2 UNABSORBED DEPR ECIATION ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (IN RS.) AMOUNT (IN RS.) COMPUTATION OF INCOME (PGS) ITR (PGS) 2005 - 06 3,77,364 1 2 LESS: UAD SET OFF AGAINST INCOME OF AY 2006- 07 35,393 3,41,971 2006 - 07 37 38 2007 - 08 3,34,803 78 79L AND 79M 2008 - 09 466 134 13 5K AND 135L TOTAL 6,77,240 UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (IN RS.) COMPUTATION OF INCOME (PGS) ITR (PGS) 2007 - 08 3,75,293 78 79L TO 79M BROUGHT FORWARD UAD AND BUSINESS LOSS SET OFF BY ASSESSEE AGAINST TAXABLE INCOME OF AY 2009 - 10 10,52,533 201 211 212 PAGE NO 8 OF 8 2.1 AY2007-08 IN AY 2007-08 AO HAD ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN AT NIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PLACED AT PAGE 123 OF PB WHEREAS INCOME AS PER ITR WAS A LOSS OF RS.7,10,096 /- AND PLACED AT PAGES 79L AND 79K OF PB. AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 07.06.2013 F OR THIS PURPOSE WAS FILED WITH AO AND PLACED AT PAGE 299 OF PB. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DELETED BY ID. CIT(A) (ORDER PLACED AT PAGES 124 TO 133 OF PB). THE NECESSARY APPEAL EFFECT ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGES 305 TO 306 OF PB. APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE I TAT AS PER ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 PLACED AT PAGES 194 TO 200 OF PB. 2.2 AY 2008-09 THE RELEVANT DETAILS ARE TABULATED BELOW: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) TAR (PGS) APPLICATI ON U/S 154 DATED 07.06.2013 (PGS) APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 11.12.2012 _ (PGS) _ UAD AS ABOVE 3,34,803 CURRENT YEAR LOSS AS ABOVE 3,75,293 TOTAL AS PER 7,10,096 90 299 305 - 306 COMPUTATION (REFLECTING (AS ASSESSMENT (DETERMINING PLACED AT PAGE 78 BROUGHT ORDER DATED THE INCOME FORWARD 15.12.2009 HAD OF THE UAD OF ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN ASSESSEE RS.3,41,971 / - TOTAL INCOME AS PER CONSEQUENT RELEVANT TO RETURN PLACED AT TO RELIEF GIVEN AY 2006 - 07 PAGE 123 OF PB AT BY LD. IS REFLECTED ) NIL WHEREAS LOSS RETURNED AS PER ITR PLACED AT PAGE 79M OF PB WAS RS.7,10,096/-) CIT(A)) PAGE NO 9 OF 8 IN AY 2008-09 AO HAS ALREADY DETERMINED UAD LOSS OF RS.466/- BY APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 21.08.2012 PLACED AT PAGE 301 OF PB. APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE I TAT AS PER ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 PLACED AT PAGES 194 TO 200 OF PB. THE RELEVANT DETAILS ARE TABULATED BELOW: 2.3 AY 2009-10 IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL (AY 2009-10) THE DETAILS OF BROUGHT FORWARD UAD AND BUSINESS LOS S ARE REFLECTED IN CLAUSE 25(A) IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT PLACED AT PAGE 232 OF PB IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RS.3,34,803/- (2007-2008) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RS.3,41,971/- (2006-2007) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RS.466/- (2008-2009) BUSINESS LOSS RS.3,75,293/- (2007-2008) APPLICATION U/S 154 DATED 26-08.2012 PLACED AT PAGE 304 OF PB AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.11.2011 PLACED AT PAGES 258 TO 265 OF PB ON THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO FILED AS PER DETAILS TABULAT ED BELOW:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 21.08.2012 (PGS) UAD AS ABOVE 466 301 (DETERMINING THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE CONSEQUENT TO RELIEF GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A)). TOTAL AS PER COMPUTATION PLACED AT PAGE 134 466 PAGE NO 10 OF 8 PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) TAR (PGS) APPLICATION U/S 154 DATED 21.08.2012 (PGS) ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) / 254 BY AO DATED 21.12.2016 (PGS) BROUGHT FORWARD UAD OF AY 2005- 06 3,41,971 BROUGHT FORWARD UAD OF AY 2007- 08 3,34,803 BROUGHT FORWARD UAD OF AY 2008- 09 466 BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF AY 2008 - 09 3,75,293 TOTAL AS PER COMPUTATION AT PLACEDJIAGE 201 SET OFF AGAINST CURRENT YEAR INCOME OF RS.11,72,363/- RESULTING IN NET TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,19,829/- WHICH WAS RETURNED 10,52,533 232 (REFLECTING BROUGHT FORWARD UAD AND BUSINESS LOSS TOTALLING TO RS.10,52,533/- ) 304 307-311 (IMPUGNED ORDER OF AO) 0 PAGE NO 11 OF 8 PRAYER: IT IS PRAYED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE SUBMISS IONS AND ORDERS / ITR ON RECORD HONBLE ITAT MAY BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE C LAIM FOR SET OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD UAD / BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 10,52,533/- FROM THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AS TABULATED BELOW: (I) (II) (III) ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (IN RS.) DIRECTION PRAYED FOR 2005 - 06 3,77,364 ON THE BASIS OF ITR FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2005-06 PLACED AT PAGE 2 OF PB AND AY 2006-07 PLACED AT PAGE 37 READ WITH PAGE 38 OF PB AS THESE TWO YEARS WERE NOT UNDER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT LESS: UAD SET OFF AGAINST INCOME OF AY 2006-07 35,393 TOTAL 3,41,971 ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (IN RS.) DIRECTIONS PRAYED FOR 2007 - 08 3,34,803 ON THE BASIS OF ITR FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE 79M OF PB READ WITH APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 11.12.2012 PLACED AT PAGES 305 TO 306 OF PB 2007 - 08 3,75,293 TOTAL 7,10,096 ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (IN RS.) DIRECTIONS PRAYED FOR 2008 - 09 466 ON THE BASIS OF APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 21.08.2012 PLACED AT PAGE 301 OF PB DETERMINING THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR A T RS.466/- CONSEQUENTIAL TO RELIEF GIVEN BY ID. CIT(A). TOTAL 466 PAGE NO 12 OF 8 12 6. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SYNOPSIS/SU BMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS/SYNOPSIS NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AND VERIFIED AT THE LEVEL OF THE A O, AND DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFTER CONSIDERING/VERI FYING THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SYNOPSIS/SUBMISSIONS, AS PER LAW AND GIVE A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05-11-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 05-11-2018 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.