2018 (10) TMI 728 - AT - Income Tax

Non-granting of set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss with the income of the assessee while framing intimation u/s 143(1) - Held that - We find from the materials available on record that the assessee had also preferred a rectification petition u/s 154 before the AO seeking for the set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss and unabsorbed business loss for the relevant assessment years. The assessee has filed 154 petition on several dates i.e. 21.11.2014, 13.01.2015, 15.04.2016 and 26.04.2018. None of the petitions filed by the assessee were acted upon by the AO. Computation of book profits u/s 115JB - Held that - The assessee disclosed book profits of ₹ 70,03,340/- and the same was computed by the CPC, Bangalore at ₹ 85,44,650/- without assigning any reason. The assessee has also preferred 154 petition before the ld. AO for the same as the rectification rights to transfer to the jurisdictional Assessing officer on 05.02.2016 as is evident from the e-filing website of Income tax Department. This was also not acted upon by the ld. AO. Remand the issues raised in these two appeals before us to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised in these two appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues: Non-granting of set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss with the income of the assessee while framing intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax concerning the intimation u/s 143(1) for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14.
2. The common issue in both appeals was the denial of set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss by the CPC while allowing adjustment of brought forward business loss.
3. For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business loss, but the CPC only allowed the latter without reason.
4. Similarly, for 2013-14, the set off of brought forward loss was not permitted by the CPC, leading to appeals before the Ld. CIT(A).
5. The assessee also filed rectification petitions under section 154 seeking the set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss, which were not addressed by the ld. AO.
6. Additionally, in the assessment year 2012-13, discrepancies in the computation of book profits under section 115JB were noted, and rectification petitions were filed but remained unaddressed.
7. Considering the facts, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
8. Consequently, the appeals for both assessment years were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper consideration and resolution of the issues raised.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key details and legal implications of the judgment, focusing on the non-granting of set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss, rectification petitions, and the remand of issues for further adjudication.