Assessment remanded for verification of carried-forward business losses under section 72(3), unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2), and 43B issues

ITAT remanded the assessment to the AO, directing verification of carried-forward non-speculative business losses claimed under section 72(3) for AYs 2017-18 and 2020-21 and, if genuine and within the eight-year limit, allow set-off despite prior reporting errors. The claim for unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) was also remitted for verification and adjustment against profits if legally allowable. The AO must verify the section 43B contention and afford the taxpayer a proper hearing before concluding.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the delay of 93 days in filing the appeal should be condoned where the earlier counsel failed to hand over records due to a medical emergency and there is no objection from the Departmental Representative.

2. Whether brought forward business losses (other than speculative losses) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2020-21, claimed in the return for the year under appeal, are admissible for set-off against current year business income under section 72(3) when an incorrect originating year was inadvertently mentioned in the return for the year under appeal.

3. Whether unabsorbed depreciation brought forward (claimed under section 32(2)) amounting to a large sum is required to be allowed/set off against current year income notwithstanding processing adjustments, and whether its allowability can be examined/adjusted at assessment stage without a formal separate return or procedural formality.

4. Whether an addition of an amount representing GST not deposited within the prescribed date under section 43B results in double taxation where the assessee has already added back the same amount in its own computation of taxable income in the return.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing appeal

Legal framework: Principles governing condonation of delay require demonstration of sufficient cause and absence of wilful neglect; affidavit and supporting evidence may be considered.

Precedent Treatment: No specific precedent cited; decision follows established practice of condoning delay where cause is credible and not wilful.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal relied on the affidavit of the earlier counsel confirming medical incapacity and non-delivery of papers, coupled with the Departmental Representative's lack of objection, to conclude absence of wilful neglect.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay condoned on facts; reasoning applicable where credible evidence of inadvertent inability to act is presented.

Conclusion: Delay of 93 days is condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing on merits.

Issue 2: Allowability of set-off of brought forward business losses under section 72(3) where originating year was incorrectly reported

Legal framework: Section 72(3) permits carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business losses (other than speculative losses) for a maximum of eight assessment years succeeding the year in which the loss was first computed; genuineness, timely filing and year-wise origins are relevant to allowability.

Precedent Treatment: Reliance placed by appellant on authorities emphasizing that technical or procedural lapses should not defeat genuine claims; Tribunal also referenced Board Circular authority on not denying relief for mere technical lapses. First appellate authority dismissed claim citing inconsistency in year-wise disclosure.

Interpretation and reasoning: Tribunal examined ITRs for the earlier years and found that losses for AY 2017-18 and AY 2020-21 were reflected in the relevant ITRs and are within the eight-year limitation period. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's admission of an inadvertent erroneous entry of originating year in the return for the year under appeal and held that denial solely on that technical misreporting would be inappropriate where supporting records (ITR schedules of the earlier years) exist to demonstrate genuineness and timeliness of claims. The Departmental Representative had no objection to remand for verification.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - genuine carried forward losses that are within the statutory eight-year period should not be denied merely for an inadvertent technical error in reporting the originating year; factual verification by Assessing Officer is warranted. Obiter - remarks on the scope of "false statement/claim" when there is evidence of the earlier returns supporting the loss claim.

Conclusion: Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify earlier years' returns and, if the claims are genuine and legally allowable, to permit set-off of Rs. 49,46,336 relating to AY 2017-18 and AY 2020-21 under section 72(3).

Issue 3: Allowability and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2)

Legal framework: Section 32(2) allows unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward and set off against future profits without a specified temporal limitation; no mandatory separate return requirement for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as contrasted with business loss carry forward.

Precedent Treatment: Appellant relied on jurisdictional High Court authority stating no mandatory requirement to file a separate return for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation; Tribunal also noted ITAT decisions indicating AO's duty to compute correct depreciation from available records even if initial computation was incorrect.

Interpretation and reasoning: Tribunal observed that intimation under section 143(1) evidenced final tax demand, implying the unabsorbed depreciation claim may not have been given effect to in processing. Given the statutory position that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward indefinitely and the availability of earlier ITRs/TAR, the Tribunal directed remand to the AO to verify records and adjust unabsorbed depreciation against profits and gains of the previous year if legally allowable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - unabsorbed depreciation claimed in prior years should be examined and, if allowable, set off/adjusted by AO even where processing did not reflect it; procedural omissions in processing do not extinguish substantive entitlement under section 32(2). Obiter - guidance that AO may compute correct figure from available records where initial computation is incorrect.

Conclusion: Issue remanded to the AO for verification of records and adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation in accordance with section 32(2) if legally admissible.

Issue 4: Disallowance under section 43B for GST not deposited and alleged double taxation

Legal framework: Section 43B permits disallowance of certain payments not made within prescribed time; however, treatment in assessment must account for amounts already added back in the assessee's own computation to avoid duplicative disallowance.

Precedent Treatment: No distinct precedent cited; matter treated as one of fact and account reconciliation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee asserted that the disallowed amount of Rs. 15,549 was already added back in its computation filed with the return, and hence further disallowance would result in double taxation. Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim in records and allow consequential relief if supported.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - AO must verify whether an amount has been self-disallowed/added back in the return and avoid double taxation; factual reconciliation is required. Obiter - none beyond procedural direction to verify.

Conclusion: Matter remanded to AO to verify the computation and allow relief where the GST addition has already been accounted for in the assessee's return.

Overall Disposition

On the whole, the Tribunal condoned the procedural delay, set aside the assessment, and remanded the matters for factual verification by the Assessing Officer with directions to allow genuine and timely claims under sections 72(3) and 32(2) and to verify the GST addition under section 43B; appeal allowed for statistical purposes with opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

---