TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed in computing the business loss, thus on that ground also there will be no business loss to be carried forward. 3. In first appeal the CIT(A) found that even though the return was filed on 28-12-1999, it could not be held as a belated return for the reason that the time for filing the return for the impugned assessment year 1999-2000 was extended up to 31-12-1999 and as the return was filed within the said extended period, there was no delay in filing the return of income. Therefore, he held that on that ground the claim of carry forward of loss made by the assessee could not be turned down. The CIT(A) also observed that the Assessing Officer was wrong in not allowing the carry forward of the loss as he has not commented adversely on the correctness of the loss returned by the assessee. He accordingly accepted the claim of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of carry forward of losses. It is against the above order that the Revenue has come in appeal before us. 4. The grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are as follows : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e returned by the assessee-company was from profit on sale of shop. It was not out normal business activities. He invited our attention to pages 11 to 15 of the paper book. At page 11, the details of purchases and sales for the year ending as at 31-3-1996 are available. He pointed out that for the subsequent years ending on 31-3-1997 and 31-3-1998 there are no purchases or sales at all. For the year ending 31-3-1999, the purchases and sales were only of shops and exactly speaking, the shops were purchased from assessee's own family circles thereby all the transactions being given the smell of a colourable device to evade the payment of tax. But for this colourable device of purchases and sales of shops from assessee's own associates, no other business was carried out by the assessee even during the impugned previous year. The learned senior departmental representative further submitted that it is stated by the assessee that the business carried on by the assessee also include purchase and sale of shares but no such transactions are reflected for the concerned previous years mentioned above. 6. The learned senior departmental representative further contended that in these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt previous year the assessee-company was not carrying on any business activity is not correct. The assessee has explained all the facts and also explained that the purchases and sales of shops are regular business of the assessee covered by the object clauses of the Memorandum of Understanding. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the claim of carry forward of loss of Rs. 25,83,603 made by the assessee-company is not constituted of the loss relating to the impugned assessment year 1999-2000 alone. The loss claimed to be carried forward by the assessee was only Rs. 15,62,706 for the impugned assessment year whereas the balance amount represented the loss determined for the earlier assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and brought forward for further set-off. He, therefore, submitted that the contention of the learned departmental representative that the entire loss should be ignored for the purpose of carry forward for the reason of non-carrying of business during the impugned previous year is against the facts of the case. 11. The learned counsel further explained that even though the Assessing Officer has made such an observation that the assessee has not carried o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned departmental representative in reply explained that irrespective of the fact that the Assessing Officer has explained and considered the relevant issues in a proper perspective or not, it is the duty of the appellate Tribunal to pass appropriate orders after declaring the correct law even if the order passed by the Tribunal might go against the appellant and fall in favour of the respondent. He submitted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer has not explained in very many words the infirmities reflected in the claim made by the assessee. But that does not mean that the Tribunal should not go into those basic facts which is necessary to determine the issue in accordance with the law. He relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CCAP Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 270 ITR 248. He also relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench "A" in the case of Abhinav Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2002] 81 ITD 339 . 15. We heard both sides in detail. As held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, it is the duty of the Tribunal to come to a correct decision on the basis of the facts placed before it even though the orders of the lower authorities might not h....