9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed, reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of AO. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made here-in-above, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for its fresh consideration to determine the actual loss for the year under consideration and subsequent assessment years. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside. Accordingly, only ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA Nos.305 And 306/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2020 - Shri R.S. Syal, Vice President And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income for A.Y. 2011-12 the assessee shown the loss at ₹ 22,69,353/- and by noticing mistakes in accounts issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act requesting the assessee as to why excess loss of ₹ 70,00,000/- would not be restricted to ₹ 22,69,353/- (₹ 92,79,353/- - ₹ 70,00,000/-). The assessee contended by mistake the wrong opening stock was taken from the previous year closing stock and the carry forward loss is correctly shown at ₹ 92,79,353/- in the unaudited financial statements. The AO did not find the submissions as acceptable and restricted the carry forward loss at ₹ 22,69,353/-. 6. In the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that there was a mistake of the Accountant wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no steps taken by the assessee to rectify the mistakes in the Accounts. He referred to impugned order at page 6 and submitted that there was no material evidence to demonstrate in the First Appellate proceedings by the assessee as to which caused such gross inadvertent mistake of not disclosing a huge amount of ₹ 70,00,000/- to both the authorities. He argued that there was no evidence even before this Tribunal in support of the contentions of ld. AR. 9. We note that the assessee shown closing stock for A.Y. 2011-12 at ₹ 1,30,43,800/- and opening stock for A.Y. 2012-13 at ₹ 60,43,800/-. According to AO when the closing stock as on 31-03-2011 is ₹ 1,30,43,800/- and the opening stock as on 01-04-2011 must have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erification of its account in determining the actual loss. The ld. DR agreed, reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of AO. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made here-in-above, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for its fresh consideration to determine the actual loss for the year under consideration and subsequent assessment years. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside. Accordingly, only ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 306/PUN/2019, (A.Y. 2014-15) 10. We note th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
