TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal before the Tribunal in case tax effect by virtue of the relief given by the CIT(A) is less than Rs. 20 Lakhs. These instructions have been made applicable even on pending appeals as on the date of issuance of such instructions. Therefore, in view of the above instruction, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly. However, it is made clear that in case on re-verification, learned AO comes out that the case falls within the exceptions provided at serial no.8 of the circular or tax effect is more than Revenue will be at liberty to apply for recall of this order but such application will be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. In view of the above, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 3. Now we take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No. 344/Ahd/2015. 4. Assessee has taken six grounds of appeal which are not inconsonance with Rule 8 of ITAT Rules. They are descriptive and argumentative in nature. Learned counsel for the assessee did not press ground no.1 vide which reITA opening of the assessment was challenged. Considering the stand of the learned counsel for the assessee, this ground is rejected. 5. In ground no.5, assessee challenged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o A.Y.2000-01 are attached with such submission. As per the AR the amount of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the A.Y.1994-95, A.Y.1995-96 and A.Y.1996-97 can be verified from the copy of return of income of A.Y. 1997-98. It is further mentioned by the AR in his submission dated 15/10/2014 that the copies of returns of income for all the Assessment years from A.Y.2002-03 to A.Y.2007-08 are also attached with such submission. As per the AR on perusal of these returns it becomes clear that such brought forward unabsorbed depreciation has not been set off against income till A.Y.2008- 09. It is pleaded by the AR that on perusal of these returns of income it can be seen that the correct position of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation is substantiated. But this submission of AR is highly misleading. The AR has .merely filed "statement of computation of income' for the above assessment years from 1997-98 to 2000-01 and from 2002-03 to 2007-08. The statements of computation of income as attached by the AR with his above submission dated 15/10/2014 for the above assessment years in no way can be said to be returns of income. I am enclosing herewith the appeal order, the copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made the claim of carried forward losses/depreciation before the Department. Had the appellant filed the returns of income for above assessment years, it would have also got the-intimation u/s 143(1)(a)/143(1) of the Act; However, no copy of intimations u/s 143(1)(a)/143(1) of the Act have been filed by the AR showing that the returns of income were filed by the appellant in time and the same were processed u/s 143(1)(a)/143(1) of the Act and for which it had received intimations. In view of these facts it is held that the AR has miserably failed to establish that at the returns of income for the assessment years from 1997-98 to 2000-01 and from 2002-03 to 2007-08 have been filed by the appellant u/s 139(1) of the IT Act claiming therein the losses/depreciation to be carried forward for subsequent years. 3.4 Another aspect which required to be considered is that the appellant itself had claimed maximum amount of total brought forward losses of Rs. 42,03,985/- in the computation sheet submitted to the AO during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. It is mentioned by the AO in the reassessment order that even the same was not the correct amount as the correct amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t forward losses of Rs. 1,45,03,028/- is false and therefore the same is not acceptable. I therefore hold-that the AO has correctly considered the amount of brought forward losses at Rs. 39,23,711/- and such action of the AO is hereby confirmed. Thus, the ground of appealno.2 of the appellant is dismissed." 9. Shri P. M. Mehta while impugning the above findings of CIT(A) contended that the assessee has filed returns of income for AY 1994-95 to AY 2000-01. It has also filed returns from 2002-03 to 2007-08. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, assessee has filed computation of income and acknowledgement of the returns. The learned authorities have erred in recording a finding that this claim of the assessee is false. He submitted that let this issue be remitted back to the file of AO for further inquiry and recording of specific finding. On the other hand, learned DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 10. The stand of the assessee is that it has filed return in the past and also computation of income if those computations are perused then unabsorbed depreciation would be calculated at a higher figure than one accepted by the AO. For buttressing this claim....