9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contention that they had filed Audit Report on 31.10.1995 had been verified by either for calling for them before the Assessing Officer or calling for the assessment file, the factual dispute would have been cleared and a decision could have been taken on the merits of the matter. Thus, I am of the considered view that the matters require to be re-examined by the respondent by calling for the assessment files, examining the correctness of the stand taken by the petitioner that the tax Audit Reports were filed vide their letters dated 30.10.1995 and also examine the legal issue placed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits. Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 996. The petitioner's case is that no such communication was received by the petitioner dated 13.08.1996. The petitioner had filed revision petition initially for the assessment year 1996-1997 against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 23.01.2002 disallowing the carry forward and set off of loss claimed by the petitioner company for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. This revision petition was dismissed stating that the issue related only to the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 and denied the benefit for the assessment year 1996-1997 and also for the earlier years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. As against the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the return of income as invalid, the petitioner filed revision und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 31.03.2005 rejecting the petitioner's revision petitions. This order is impugned in W.P. Nos.4464 and 4465 of 2006. In respect of the revision petition filed for the year 1996-1997, the respondent passed a separate order dated 27.11.2003 holding that the disallowance of setting off of the losses for the assessment year 1996-1997 is only consequential, as the main grievance of the assessee arises for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 and there is nothing to revise the assessment for the year 1996-1997 under Section 264 of the Act. Thus, the net result is the assessee has been shut out from availing any benefit under the provisions of the Act. In my considered view, the assessee cannot be left remedy-less. In other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on merits especially when the petitioner relies upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to state that they are entitled to carry forward the loss for the assessment year 1996-1997. 6.Thus, I find that there has not been an examination of the merits of the matter, rather the petitioner has been shut out on technicalities. If the petitioner's contention that they had filed Audit Report on 31.10.1995 had been verified by either for calling for them before the Assessing Officer or calling for the assessment file, the factual dispute would have been cleared and a decision could have been taken on the merits of the matter. Thus, I am of the considered view that the matters require to be re-examined by the respondent by call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
