9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being heard - availing the opportunity given to it for the first time, the assessee company duly filed the prescribed form No.62 before the AO but the same was overlooked by the AO and the claim of the assessee was disallowed by him - CIT(A) took cognizance of the form and allowed the claim of the assessee – Relying upon Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Shivanand Electronics [1993 (9) TMI 30 - BOMBAY High Court] - filing of form is only directory and not mandatory – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee for the setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the amalgamating company and upholding the same – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 6883/Mum/2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) even though the prescribed form No.62 had not been filed by the assessee along with its return of income. The order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) dated 26.11.2007, therefore, was held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide his order passed u/s 263 of the Act and cancelling the same on this limited issue, the AO was directed by the CIT to reframe the same on this issue after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. As per the direction of Commissioner of Income Tax, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO, in response to which the assessee appeared before the AO and claimed to have complied with all the prescribed co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The AO reframed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. 263 of the Act dated 23.9.2010, holding that the appellant did not comply with the provisions of above sections. However, during appellate proceedings, the appellant has argued and claimed that all such conditions prescribed u/s 72A(2)(iii) r.w. rule 9C(b) were complied with and form No.62 was filed with the AO during reassessment proceedings which the AO overlooked while reframing the assessment order The present AO in the remand report has confirmed that during the reassessment proceedings, the appellant filed prescribed form No.62 thereby complying with the provisions of section 72A of the Act. Had the AO considered the said form no.62 filed by appellant during reassessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the original assessment made by AO therefore was set aside by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 263 of the Act with a direction to the AO to decide the matter afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He contended that the assessee thus got opportunity for the first time to file the prescribed form No.62 before the AO during the course of set aside proceedings and duly availed the same by filing the said form. He contended that the AO, however, over looked the said form filed by the assessee and disallowed the claim of the assessee for set-off of brought loss and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the amalgamating company. He contended that the ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, rightly took cognizance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
