9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide - HELD THAT:- We find that in the case of Regen Infrastructure Services (P) Ltd. [ 2016 (3) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that when the delay in filing of the return was due to technical snags in the website of department, and return could not be uploaded and due to which the carry forward loss could not be denied to the assessee. Also in the case of ACIT Vs M/s Noel Pharma [ 2013 (11) TMI 1731 - ITAT HYDERABAD] has also held that when delay was not because of any lapse on the part of assessee but due to technical reasons in uploading the return electronically and due to delay of few hours in getting connectivity and the date was changed from 30th September to 01st October. Thus, we affirm the order of the ld. CIT(A).Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the approval of Pr.CIT. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of assessing office may be restored to the above extent. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in yarn and also having carrying commission income. The assessee filed its return of income on 01/11/2015 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The assessee in its computation of income claimed carried forward loss of Rs. 1,50,40,579/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had declared loss of Rs. 1,50,40,579/- for the year under consideration. The assessing officer noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not upload the return of income of the assessee within the prescribed deadline due to system congestions/session expired message. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ld CIT(A) has further held that the contention of the assessee is bonafide and allowed to carry forward loss of Rs. 1,50,40,579/- . Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that the assessee has not filed return of income within due date, thus, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer disallowed the carried forward loss of Rs. 1,50,40,579/- by taking a view that where the assessee has some capital loss or business loss from business or profession to be carried forward, the assessee should file its return of income within due date as prescribed under Section 139(1). The ld. CIT(A) has held that assessee s claim of loss was disallowed for the reasons that the return was not file with in due date prescribed under section 139(1). The ld CIT(A) held that the delay of 11 minutes is bonafide. The ld. CIT(A) also recorded that the digital signatory Manish K Gupta could upload his proprietary return of income of Maatra Overseas within prescribed due date of 31/10/2015 (before 00:00 hrs of 01/11/2015) but the same digita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
