TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Chd/ 2017 is an appeal preferred by the Revenue for assessment year 2013-14 against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT (A)']. 2. First, we take up assessee's appeals for assessment years 2012- 13 & 2013-14, wherein, following grounds have been raised by the assessee :- ITA No. 663/Chd/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13):- 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana dated 10.02.2017 is wrong against law and facts of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana erred in confirming not allowing to set off business losses with the surrendered/ disclosed business income of Rs. 9,10,00,000/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 53,68,965/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on machinery. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5,Ludhiana failed to appreciate the facts and erred in confirming addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,43,107,918/- on substantative basis on account of the funds invested by M/s Sigma Fincap Private Limited in appellant company. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5,Ludhiana failed to appreciate the facts and erred in confirming addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,47,03,234/- on account of alleged excess raw material consumption without any basis and adding the same to the returned income of the assessee. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5,Ludhiana erred in confirming addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment-year 2017-18-reg. With effect from 01.04.2017, sub-section (2) of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) provides that where total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section(s) 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provisions of the Act in computing the income referred to in section 115BBE(1) of the Act. 2. In this regard, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Board of Direct Taxes(the Board) that in assessments prior to assessment year 2017-18, while some of the Assessing Officers have allowed set off of losses against the additions made by them under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view that since the term 'or set off of any loss' was specifically inserted only vide the Finance Act 2016, w.e.f. 01.04.2017, an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined under section 115BBE of the Act till the assessment year 2016-17. 5. The contents of this Circular may be circulated widely for information of all stakeholders and departmental officers. The pending assessments and litigations on this issue may be handled accordingly. 6. Hindi version to follow. &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1 is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly agreed that he does not have a case in respect of ground No. 1. He, therefore, conceded that the investment made in jewellery did not have any link / concern with the business of the assessee, therefore, the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer was justified. In view of this, ground No. 1 of the Departmental appeal stands allowed. 8. Ground No.2: Vide ground No. 2, the Revenue has agitated the action of the CIT( A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1, 69, 36, 940/- made in the gross profit for alleged unaccounted sales and corresponding investment in purchases. The Assessing Officer noticed that during the course of search proceedings at the factory premi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of these unrecorded sale purchase carried out by the assessee for which adequate amount of income has been surrendered during the search. It has also been argued that the AO has made a total addition of Rs. 12, 47,68, 112/- in A. Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 on account of excess consumption of Raw Material shown by the assessee. AR argued that this amount is sufficient to cover the addition of Rs. 6, 73, 77,184/- in Ground No.5, Rs. 2, 75, 00, 000/- in Ground No. 6 and Rs. 1,69, 36, 940/- in Ground No.7 (total Rs. 11, 18, 14, 124/-). The AR argued that this has resulted into double addition. The facts of the case, the order passed by the A.O. and the arguments of the AR during the appellate proceedings have been considered. Th....