Shubham Enterprises (Raipur) Private Limited, V. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/59/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shubham Enterprises (Raipur) Private Limited, which faced an issue with the Income Tax Department regarding the carry forward of a business loss due to late submission of an income tax return for the assessment year 2019-20. The return was technically submitted on 01.11.2019 at 00:15 hours, but due to network congestion, the documents were not uploaded by the deadline of 12:00 pm on 31.10.2019. The Assessing Officer denied the carry forward of the business loss of Rs. 7,78,205. The petitioner filed multiple applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were erroneously considered as a request for a refund by Respondent 2. The court found that Respondent 2 had not properly addressed the petitioner's request and directed a fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744722 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: TUSHAR DIWAN; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY NAGDEV
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2019-20; Business loss; Income Tax Return; Late Submission; Network Congestion
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 59 of 2022 • Shubham Enterprises (Raipur) Private Limited, Through Power of Attorney Holder Rajkumar Jugraj Parakh, Registered Office at First Floor, Wallfort Ozone, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ------Petitioner VERSUS 1. Union of India through Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, at Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Raipur -I, at - Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -------Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate For Respondent 1 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Adv Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER 10/03/2022 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a private limited company and is assessed to tax. For the assessment year 2019-20, return was submitted on 01.11.2019. He submits that though the uploading of documents was done by the Chartered Accountant in the evening but due to some network congestion, uploading of return could not take place upto 12:00 pm on 31.10.2019. The return was uploaded on 00:15 hours on 01.11.2019 and therefore the Assessing Officer did not allow carry forward of the business loss amounting to Rs. 7,78,205/-. Aggrieved by which, petitioner submitted an application to 2 Respondent 2 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.06.2021, 17.09.2021 and reminder application dated 13.10.2021. Respondent 2 while considering the application has erroneously considered the application for a prayer for refund of TDS whereas no such prayer is made in the application. He submits that in view of the aforementioned facts of the case, a direction be issued to Respondent 2 to consider the application submitted by petitioner afresh on the grounds raised therein. 3. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for Respondent 2 submits that he is having no objection on the submission of counsel for petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-3, which is the acknowledgment of income tax return filed by petitioner for the assessment year 2019-20 would show that acknowledgment is dated 01.11.2019 at 00:15:17 hours. Annexure P-5 which is an application dated 01.06.2021 specifically mentions that due to late submission of return, the business loss was not carried forward and has prayed to Respondent 2 for considering the application sympathetically and allow the business loss to be carried forward. Similar prayer is made in another application dated 17.09.2021. In another application, the provision in which the application is filed is also specifically mentioned. Annexure P-1, which is the decision on the application by Respondent 2, would show that Respondent 2 considered the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in paragraph 3 of the order, Respondent 2 considered that the applicant has sought permission for filing of 3 return to claim refund, held no refund amount is due for Assessment Year 2019-20, whereas in the application which is submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 does not talk about the claim for refund but the prayer is made for allowing the business loss to be carried forward for the reasons mentioned therein. 6. From the facts available on record, it is appearing that Respondent 2 has not considered the application of petitioner for the prayer which was made by him ie. for carrying forward of business loss but has considered the application only with respect to the claim of refund. 7. As Respondent 2 has not applied its mind on the prayer made by petitioner, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 14.01.2022, Annexure P-1 is set aside. Respondent 2 is directed to consider the applications dated 01.06.2021 and 17.09.2021 filed by petitioner afresh and to decide the application (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law. 8. Petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority along with copy of order passed by this Court along with copy of writ petition within a period of two weeks and in turn Respondent 2 shall consider and decide the application (Annexure P-5) within a further period of 4 weeks from the date of production of copy of order passed by this Court. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge P a w a n "