9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company ignoring that the Form No.62 which is a statutory requirement as provided in Rule 9C(b) r.w. section 72A of the IT Act was not filed along with the return of income and was filed 5 years later during the course of assessment proceedings." 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of scissors, knives and locks, security systems etc.The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 20.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs.1,25,17,708/-. In the assessment originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 26.11.2007, the total income of the assessee was computed by AO at Rs.1,27,51,200/-. Subsequently, it was revealed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 263 of the Act. 3. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, the appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as the material available on record, the disallowance made by AO on account of assessee's claim for unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses pertaining to amalgamating company was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) vide para 2.3 of his impugned order which reads as under: "2.3 I have considered the facts of the case. The original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 26.11.2007. However, the CIT-10, Mumbai cancelled the said assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only on 6.9.2010 during the course of proceedings before the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. He contended that filing of the said form along with the return of income was a mandatory condition to allow the claim of the assessee for set-off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to amalgamating company as per the provisions of section 72A(2)(b)(iii) of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified to allow the claim of the assessee by taking cognizance of the form filed by the assessee belatedly, ignoring that it was mandatory on the part of the assessee to file the said form along with the return of income. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the claim of the assessee for set-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment completed u/s 143(3) even in the absence of the prescribed form No.62 filed by the assessee. The said assessment, therefore, was set aside by the ld. CIT by exercising his powers u/s 263 and the AO was directed by him to decide this afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Availing this 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. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, took cognizance of the said form and allowed the claim of the assessee which, in our opinion, is in consonance with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivanand Elect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
