9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. Thus an error in the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) in allowing the set off of loss of ₹ 3,99,13,429/- pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 and the same being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) dated 18.12.2017 was liable to the revised as rightly held by the ld. Principal CIT in his impugned order passed under section 263. Working made by the ld. Principal CIT regarding the excess set off of loss pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 alleged to be wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer is not correct and this matter should have been left open by him to the Assessing Officer for making the working on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of development of I.T. Parks and related infrastructural facilities. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 18.12.2017, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer as per the normal provisions of the Act at Rs. NIL after allowing set off for the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses of the earlier years including the brought forward business loss of ₹ 3,99,13,429/- pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. The book profit of the assessee-company under section 115JB of the Act was computed by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 2,57,78,146/- as declared in the return of income. The record of the assessment completed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -16 was erroneous in so far, as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is claimed in the SCN that in arriving at the assessed income for the AY 2015-16 the AO wrongly allowed set-off for brought forward business loss of ₹ 3,99,13,429/- pertaining to AY 2019. On scrutiny of the Assessment Orders for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 it was noted by you that such business loss was not available for set off in AY 2015-16 because the loss was entirely set off in the earlier years i.e. in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. In this regard we place on your record our following objections. Before dealing with the specific issue, it is relevant to place on record the following facts for correct appreciation of the issue at hand. For AY 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of ₹ 8,43,55,803/- was fully deleted by him. Consequent to giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order dated 30.10.2019 the revised assessed income is (-) ₹ 19,10,76,892/- which inter-alia includes business loss of ₹ 3,99,13,429 and for which no setoff has been allowed till AY 2014-15. As such the business loss assessed in AY 2019-20 was rightly allowed to be set off by the AO in AY 2015-16 while passing the Assessment Order u/s. 143(3). It is therefore submitted that the assessment order for AY 2015-16 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reasons set out in your SCN . 3. The ld. Principal CIT did not find merit in the submission made on behalf of the assessee for the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90,10,694/- . 4. For the reasons given above and by relying on certain judicial pronouncements referred to in his impugned order, the ld. Principal CIT set aside the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 04.02.2020 passed under section 263 of the Act with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the observations made by him. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Principal CIT passed under section 263, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2009-10 was claimed by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 3,99,13,429/- against the income for A.Y. 2015-16, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to allow such set off only to the extent of loss as determined in the assessment. The undisputed fact in this regard is that the total loss of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 was determined in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 19.03.2016 at ₹ 10,67,21,089/- as against the loss of ₹ 19,10,76,892/- declared by the assessee and since the entire loss so determined was already set off against the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, no loss as determined in the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 was available for set off against the incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
