2015 (11) TMI 984

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry forward of loss in the assessment year 2005-06 because of the fact that loss could not have been carried forward due to delayed filing of return of income. However, once loss was quantified and allowed to be carried forward in the assessment year 2005-06, we are not able to understand how it can be rectified in the assessment year 2006-07 wherein the brought forward loss has only been set off. Therefore, there being no mistake apparent on record in the assessment order passed for the impugned assessment year, exercise of power under section 154 of the Act is invalid. Accordingly, there being no infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we uphold the same by dismissing ground raised. - Decided in favour of as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sment order. As observed by the Assessing Officer, in spite of such notice since no one appeared on behalf of the assessee and submitted any explanation, the Assessing Officer presuming that the assessee has no objection to rectify the mistake, passed an order under section 154 of the Act on December 20, 2012 by disallowing the brought forward loss of ₹ 92,85,891, which resulted in determination of total income at ₹ 92,85,891. Being aggrieved of the order passed under section 154 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4. In the course of hearing of appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ving filed the return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 after the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, hence, no loss can be carried forward, the Assessing Officer initiated proceeding under section 154 of the Act and ultimately passed the order disallowing the set off of brought forward loss of ₹ 92,85,891. In our view the exercise of power under section 154 of the Act in the present case is totally invalid. As can be seen, the loss of ₹ 92,85,891 was quantified and allowed to be carried forward while processing the return filed by the assessee under section 143(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06. However, the loss and depreciation involved was not verifiable. Therefore, if at all there is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X