TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal business loss Rs.14266828/- Thus losses deserves to be allowed c/f and b/f. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals)-1 has also erred on the facts and in law in not allowing current year depreciation loss Rs.1584389/-. Thus loss deserves to be allowed carried forward. 3. The petitioner craves leave to add, alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. However, a written submission is placed on record by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. Under these facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being disposed off on the basis of material available on record. 3. The only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was long pending before the Hon'ble Company Law Board, the business activities were completely closed since November,2011 month to till the year under reference. As such , in the year under reference also, there were no business activities. However disputes has been resolved on 18.02.2016 after the due date of filing returns of income. 2. That present appeal petition has been against the order dated 16.11.2017 of Ld. AO, ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur, whereby his goodself has not allowed brought forward and carried forward total business loss Rs.1,42,66,828/ and depreciation loss Rs.46,60,897/- respectively without discussing/ mentioning any reason. On further appeal, Id. CIT (A) only allowed the claim of depreciation loss partly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dt.31.12.2018 4. 2014-15 16.08.2016 The PCIT, Udaipur Petition allowed vide order dt.31.12.2018 5. 2015-16 17.08.2017 10.01.2018 The PCIT, Udaipur The ACIT, Udaipur Petition pending for decision 2. In the year under reference there were no business activities, only administrative expenses incurred. The return of income for the asstt. year under reference was filed on 17.10.2016 declaring business loss of Rs.4,64,458/- (PB No. 07 to 08). This return of income scrutinized u/s 143(3) of the Act and the order of assessment was passed on 16.11.2017 . In the order of assessment the AO did not discussed about allowability of the returned loss as well as carry forward of the same. Further he also did not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome were same. 5. In the orders u/s 119(2)(b) for the asstt. years 2011-12 to 2014-15 , a specific direction appended which reproduce here ... after considering the facts and circumstances of the case , the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing of return ,hence, delay in filing the return and claiming loss is hereby condoned u/s 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act. The A.O. is directed to consider the claim of carry forward of losses on merits in accordance with law. Following the direction the AO have rectified the other year's intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the asstt. year 2017-18 and 2019-20 (PB No.10 & 11) and allowed set off losses brought forward of the asstt. year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the asstt. year 2017-18 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nafide mistake he certified that documents submitted in the paper book were submitted before the below authorities. Whereas these are being firstly submitted before your honour as was not possessed till the first appeal proceeding. Pleader for the humble appellant." 9. The Revenue has not disputed the fact that the business loss was not allowed to be carried forward on the ground that the assessee had filed its return of income belatedly. Further, the Revenue has not disputed the fact that in earlier years, from the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, the condonation has been allowed by the Competent Authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. It is stated that the facts are identical and the petition for condonation of delay qua the year under considerat....