9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 263 - AT - Income TaxAdjustment made by the CPC (Centralized Processing Centre) u/sec. 143(1) - assessee filed it s return of income declaring total income at NIL after set off of current year s business loss and also brought forward business loss - CPC did not allow set off of brought forward losses against the short term capital gain and hence, made the adjustment and raised a demand - HELD THAT - As the issue in question is debatable, which needs to be considered in detail both the legal aspects and factual aspects and decision has to be arrived at. Such legal issues are not permissible to decide u/sec. 143(1) as decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. VisakhaJilla Nava Nirmana Samithi 2020 (2) TMI 1489 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM Even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of this Tribunal in PADMAVATHI SRINIVASA COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY. 2009 (3) TMI 246 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM while allowing the set off of losses and the department did not place any other decision of the superior Court to controvert the decision relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) - Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal against the Revenue, hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Set off of brought forward business losses against short-term capital gains. 3. Permissibility of legal issues being decided under section 143(1). 4. Delay in filing cross-objection by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) did not allow the set off of brought forward business losses against the short-term capital gain amounting to ?3.80 crores, raising a demand of ?1,16,75,364/-. The assessee appealed against this adjustment. 2. Set off of brought forward business losses against short-term capital gains: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the appeal, holding that it is permissible to claim the set off of brought forward losses against short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) relied on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of Sri Padmavathi Srinivasa Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory and the ITAT, Mumbai decisions in the cases of Digital Electronics Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT and M/s. Nirmal Plastic Industries. The CIT(A) noted that the brought forward business loss pertains to assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15 and can be set off against short-term capital gains resulting from the sale of depreciable assets. The ITAT Visakhapatnam and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Western States Trading Co. (P) Ltd. supported this view, allowing the set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss against short-term capital gains computed under section 50 of the Act. 3. Permissibility of legal issues being decided under section 143(1): The Tribunal noted that the issue in question is debatable and needs detailed consideration of both legal and factual aspects. Such legal issues are not permissible to decide under section 143(1). The Tribunal cited its decision in M/s. Visakha Jilla Nava Nirmana Samithi Vs. DCIT, where it was held that adjustments requiring verification with relevant documents are beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal emphasized that the department must give intimation before making such adjustments, which was not demonstrated in this case. 4. Delay in filing cross-objection by the assessee: The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed due to a delay of 126 days without a petition for condonation of delay. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order allowing the set off of brought forward business losses against short-term capital gains. The cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed due to the delay in filing. The Tribunal upheld that legal issues requiring detailed consideration are not permissible under section 143(1) adjustments.
|
