2022 (7) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 05/12/2018 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, the ld. AR argued that the appeal of the revenue is to be dismissed as not maintainable , in view of the fact that the tax effect of the disputed issue before us is less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT for enabling revenue to prefer appeal before this tribunal. This was vehemently objected by the ld. DR by stating that the case falls under the exception to the said CBDT Circular on low tax effect, as in the instant case, the case was reopened based on audit objection which was accepted by the revenue. In support of this, the ld. DR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e hands of the assessee for Asst Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were only on protective basis and hence the brought forward losses could not be set off against the business income assessed on protective basis. 3.3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there was no new information or material that had cropped up in the file of the ld. AO having a live link which would enable the ld. AO to form a reasonable belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Moreover, since the reopening was made beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the proviso to section 147 of the Act would come into operation, wherein the ld. AO had to establish the failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of income in the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from proceeding with the application of other legal provisions of the Act such as - adjusting the brought forward losses with the assessed income and allowing the loss remaining , if any, to be carried forward to subsequent years. Hence we are not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the ld. AR in this regard. 3.5. Moreover, the additions were made on substantive basis for the Asst Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the hands of some other assessee. The ld.AR stated that against those substantive additions, that assessee had preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and the same are pending disposal by the ld. CIT(A) as on date. This is a statement made by the ld. CIT(A) from the Bar. We hold that though there may not be apparent failure....