2022 (5) TMI 1536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "1. On the facts and circumstances of the facts and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,50,40,579/- made on account of loss claimed by the assessee, as the firm has failed to file its return of income according to the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act within due date and even before the extended due date so that the loss can be carried forward as per the provisions of Section 80 of the IT Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the facts and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of loss claimed by the assessee, ignoring that assessee failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that the delay in filing the return....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee was not accepted by assessing officer by taking view that to carry forward business loss the return should be file within due date as prescribed under section 139(1). 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), the assessee retreated the similar submissions as made before assessing officer. The assessee also relied on the decision of Tribunal in ACIT Vs Noel Pharma Hyderabad (ITA No. 1664/HYD/2012 dated 29.11.2013) wherein on similar circumstances one day delay was condoned. The assessee submitted that the delay was due the reason beyond their control though the assessee filed its return in time. It was due to technical snag in the system due to last minutes. The assessee submitted signatory Manish K Gupta could upload his proprietory retur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as 01/1/2015 instead of 30.10.2015. The ld. CIT(A) after appreciated the facts and given relief to the assessee by deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. To support his submission, the ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: • ITA No. 1664/Hyd/2012, ACIT Vs M/s Noel Pharma, Hyderabad order dated 29/11/2013. • Regen Infrastructure & Services (P) Ltd. Vs CBDT, New Delhi (2016) 68 taxmann.com 93 (Mad). 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that during the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had declared loss of Rs. 1,50,40,579/- for the year under appeal. In thi....