9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim in the assessment proceedings, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing appropriate proceedings before the CBDT for condonation of delay once the Tribunal expressed its opinion. The petitioner has accepted such opinion and not preferred the appeal in the High Court. As per the impugned order, the first evidence of such a petition being filed before the CBDT was on 23.10.2015. Though the petitioner contended that previously one such petition was filed on 6.10.2014, the CBDT found no evidence of such proceedings being filed. The petitioner claims to have filed such an application before the AO. Even there, the CBDT found that the evidence of any such petition being presented, inadequate. The petitioner produced the receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal by order dated 10.5.2012. This order was challenged by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short). The Tribunal passed an order dated 21.3.2014 allowing Revenue s appeal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that since the return of income was not filed by the assessee within time, the claim for carry forward of losses was not sustainable. The Tribunal expressed an opinion that the proper course for the assessee would have been to seek condonation of delay in filing the return from the CBDT. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the CBDT by filing appropriate application under Section 119(2) of the Act seeking condonation of delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submitted that the first application for condonation of delay was filed on 6.10.2014 which was ignored by the CBDT. Learned counsel relied on following decisions:- i. Pala Marketing Co-op. Society Ltd Vs. Union of India Ors.[2009] 311 ITR 177 (Ker) ii. M/s. Bombay Mercantile Co-op Bank Ltd Vs. CBDT Ors. Judgment dated 20.9.2010 in O.S. Writ Petition No. 1544 of 2010 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Walve appearing for the Department opposed the petition contending that the CBDT has considered all aspects of the matter and given reasons for rejecting the petitioner s application. Quite apart from the delay in filing the return has not been explained, even application for condontion of delay was beyon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der records that even the Authority to whom the same has been forwarded is not mentioned. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has not been prompt in pursuing the remedies on the ground of limitation and latches. We are doubtful if this period of six years for approaching CBDT is extendable in the first place. No case of interference is made out. 7. As is well known, even a declaration of loss would require assessment so that only the genuine loss is recognized and which would be available for carry forward to be set off against future income. Accepting the petitioner's request, would amount to reopening the assessment for the long past period. Under these circumstances, the petition is disposed of. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
