TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration of Rs. 46,64,700/- in place of Rs. 32,51,000/- as claimed in the return of income and ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the same. 2. That the ld. assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in not considering the short term capital loss on account of sale of machinery of Rs. 3,45,423/- and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the same. 3. That the ld. assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in not considering the short term capital loss on account of sale of furniture of Rs. 33,083/- and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the same. 4. That the ld. assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A) called for a remand report reproduced at Para 4.3, Pg 12 of the CIT(A) order. The AO in the remand report observed that assessee has submitted handmade kachha receipt/ voucher regarding sale of furniture & machinery dt. 10.08.2008 & 14.08.2008. For verification, summons were issued to Sh. Kamal Chand Garg who purchased these items but it is informed by the A/R of Sh. Kamal Chand Garg that he has since expired on 25.01.2009. In response to the remand report, the assessee furnished his explanation which is reproduced at Para 4.4, Pg 13 of the CIT(A) order where it is contended that AO in the remand report has not stated that assessee has not sold plant & machinery or furniture or amount on sale of these items is not received or that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance of short term capital loss confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and the same be directed to be allowed. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to file the return of income by the due date and no evidence was brought on record that old machinery and furniture was ever sold and even in the remand proceedings, the claim of the assessee of sale of old machinery & furniture could not be verified by the Assessing Officer. Further, no return of income was filed by the assessee for the preceding year. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee has not submitted sufficient evidence that old furniture & machinery was sold and disallowance of short term capital loss on sale of old furniture ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see's books of accounts as on the beginning of the year and have since been disposed off way back in 2008, therefore, mere apprehension cannot be a basis to deny the fact that these assets have been sold at the stated consideration as evidenced by the sale receipts. Similarly, the findings of the ld CIT(A) that no evidence for sale of plant and machinery was brought on record is incorrect as the assessee has submitted the sale receipts in support of such transactions which have infact been taken on record by the ld CIT(A) and sent for AO's comments and verification. Lastly, non-filing of the return of income by due date can be basis for denial of claim for carry forward of losses as per section 139(3) of the Act, therefore, in the instant c....