9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the carry forward of losses to future years. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.914/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2017 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri. Gurunathan, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, JM : This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), inter alia, on the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have allowed the carry forward loss as claimed by the appellant. 2. On the facts the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l iable to be set aside. 6. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in fol lowing the Special judgment of the Mumbai Income-tax Appel late Tribunal in preference to the jurisdict ional High Court judgment especial ly when the judgment of the Tribunal, Mumbai was not accepted and the appeal against the said order is pending before the High Court of Mumbai . 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the t ime of hearing of the appeal the appel lant prays that the appeal may be al lowed. 2. Though various grounds are raised, but they all relate to the disallowance of carry forward of losses on the ground that return of income was not filed within the due date as required under section 139(1) of the Act. 3. The facts bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rkadas G. Panchmatiya in ITA No.4727/Mum/2012, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and placed reliance upon the following judgments: 1. Sheonath Sing Vs. CIT (1958) 33 ITR 0591. 2. Gouri Kumari Devi Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 0220. 3. CIT Vs. Masoneilan (India) Ltd., (2000) 242 ITR 0569. 4. Prime securities Ltd., Vs. Varinder Mehta, ACIT Anr. (2009) 317 ITR 0027. 5. Crawford Bayley Co Vs. UOI Ors (2012) 246 CTR 0459. 6. Amsteel Castings P. Ltd., Vs. Jt.CIT (OSD) dt. 05.08.2013 7. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., (1973) 88 ITR 0192. 7. Besides, he has also placed reliance upon the circular No. 2011/8 dated 18.07.2008. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invited our attention that judgments of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Masoneilan (India) Ltd., Sheonath Singh Vs. CIT of Calcutta High Court (supra) and the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Crawford Bayley Co. Vs. UOI others and have also been carried through the judgment of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Amsteel Castings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. JCIT (supra). In these cases, the procedure of electronic filing the returns and submission of Form ITR-V was discussed and it has been noticed that once the return is electronically filed, it is irreversible and Form ITRV containing due verification was required to be submitted only by ordinary post. As per the instructions stipulated in the Form ITR-V, the Form ITR-V sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue also not disputed the fact that if the assessee's return filed on 29.9.2009 is a valid return then the :- 10 -: I.T.A.No.967 1194/13 assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. But the contention of the Department is that the return filed on 29.9.2009 was not a valid return and consequently, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, a ITR-V (verification form) of the return filed on 29.9.2009 was not received by the CPC and therefore, the said return was not a valid return. On the above facts, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act to the assessee. 13. Before us, the ld. A.R of the assessee co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 7,62,48,325/-. As the verification form was sent by ordinary post there could not be any positive evidence with the assessee. Moreover, no communication was sent by the IT Department informing the assessee that its return of income filed on 29.9.2009 electronically shall be treated as an invalid return in the absence of receipt of verification form ITRV. 16. We find that it is not in dispute that no defect notice u/s 139(9) was served upon the assessee and no opportunity to the :- 12 -: I.T.A.No.967 1194/13 assessee was allowed by the Department before treating the return submitted by the assessee electronically on 29.9.2009 as invalid return. In our considered view, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
