9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goyal, AM For the Assessee : Shri Vipul J. Shah For the Respondent : Shri P. D. Chougule ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, J M: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20.02.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC for short) and proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act') for the Assessment Year ( A.Y. for short) 2013-14. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under: 1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the ease and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding the order passed by AO u/s 154 rs 250 dated 31.03.2021 as bad in law without appreciating the fact that earlier order was inadvertently passed only u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act the second order was passed u/s 250 rs 154 of the IT Act to correct these bonafide mistake occurred and hence the same is covered by the provisions of section 292 B of the Act. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the order passed by AO u/s 154 rws 250 dated 31.03.2021 as bad in law without appreciating that the computation of income and the revised total income computed in both the orders passed u/s 250 and 250 res 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rbed depreciation which was allowed and set-off by the ld. A.O. against various additions. Now ld. A.O. has issued a notice on 25.03.2021 u/s. 154 through email asking the assessee to submit the explanation before 31.03.2021, as to why unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed. The time for compliance was within six days from the date of notice, out of which two days were holidays. Since the issue pertained to Financial year 2012-13 and was more than 8 years old and also there was complete lock down in the country, the assessee could not reply on time and, accordingly, the assessee filed the report through email on 09.04.2021. However, the assessee received email on 13.04.2021 that the order has already been passed. All these facts have been captured by the ld. CIT(A) in his order at para 3. For the sake of ready reference the same is reproduced here in under: 3. Before delving further it is of importance that the facts of the case are narrated and therefore the same are summarized as under: 1. The appellant had filed its return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 01.11.2013. It is an admitted fact that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years, has not been reported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, apparently, both bear the same date i.e., 31.03.2021. It is interesting to note that even in the consequential order referred to in Para 4.1, above, the AO disallows the brought forwarded losses of Rs. 3,08,21,712, whereas there is no such direction by the Ld. CIT(A). In the other Order which is titled as Order u/s. 250 r.w.s. 154 of Order u/s. 143(3) dated 10.03.2016 of the IT Act, 1961 and bears the same date of 31.03.2021, the AO simultaneously gives effect to the CIT(A) Order and also rectifies u/s. 154, the Order u/s. 143(3) dated 10.03.2016. Vide this order the AO disallows the brought forward losses of Rs. 3,08,21,712 for A.Y. 1995-96 to A.Y. 2007-08, as they are not claimed in the ITR filed for A.Y. 2013-14. In this order, the said amount is referred to as unabsorbed depreciation in para 2 3 correctly and later the said amount is referred to as brought forward losses wrongly. It is curious to note that the AO vide his letter dated 21.04.2021 states that his earlier letter dated 13.04.2021 has been sent wrongly and is to be ignored and the letter dated 21.04.2021 and its attachment be treated in place of earlier reference. 5. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation order u/s. 154 of the Act. The AO ought to have past separate Orders, one for consequential order giving effect to the CIT(A) s Order and the second for rectification, which the AO has failed to do. Once again, even in this Order, the AO mistakenly refers the amount of disallowance of Rs. 3,08,21,712 as brought forward losses and not as the unabsorbed depreciation, indicating non application of mind. 6.10 Further, once an order under the stamp and seal of an Officer along with a DIN has been duly served upon the assessee, the statute does not provide for any provision to request the assessee to ignore such an Order, particularly when the same is accompanied by the computation sheet and also notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act bearing the DIN. Subsequent thereto the only recourse left for the Officer is to rectify or make amends to the said Order, by the due process as prescribed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 6.11 It is quite curious to note that both the above Orders, one forwarded vide his letter dated 13.04.2021 and the other vide his letter dated 21.04.2021, bear the same DIN which has been entered manually . 6.12 In view of the above facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
