TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in facts and circumstances of the ease and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding the order passed by AO u/s 154 rs 250 dated 31.03.2021 as "bad in law without appreciating the fact that earlier order was inadvertently passed only "u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act & the second order was passed u/s 250 rs 154 of the IT Act" to correct these bonafide mistake occurred and hence the same is covered by the provisions of section 292 B of the Act. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the order passed by AO u/s 154 rws 250 dated 31.03.2021 as "bad in law" without appreciating that the computation of income and the revised total income computed in both the orders passed u/s 250....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal allowed certain claim of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the file of the A.O. in respect of one of the disallowance for verification of the claims. The Tribunal's order was passed on 14.10.2020. Till that date, there were no proceedings which were initiated by the ld. A.O. for rectification of any error. Now after passing of the order of the Tribunal on 14.12.2020 and after giving effect to the order, the ld. A.O. issued a notice u/s. 154 of the Act on 25.03.202 asking the assessee why the claim of the unabsorbed depreciation, allowed by the then ld. A.O. should not be disallowed. The statutory time limit to rectify the error u/s. 154 had otherwise ended on 31.03.2020. However, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the time lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... completed vide Assessment Order dated 10.03.2016. It is seen there from that the AO has allowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 1995-96 to A.Y.2007-08 of Rs. 3,08,21,712 in the computation of income on the last page of the said Assessment Order. 3. The additions made in the said Assessment Order have been contested by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide his Order u/s. 250 dated 28.12.2018 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by granting some reliefs. 4. Further thereto, the assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT raising two grounds namely Stamp duty and registration fee of tenancy agreement and the second ground of disallowance of expenditure. The Hon'ble ITAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nexure-B. 4.3 So in essence, the AO passes two consequential Orders to give effect to the Ld.CIT(A) Order dated 28.12.2018 and, apparently, both bear the same date i.e., 31.03.2021. It is interesting to note that even in the consequential order referred to in Para 4.1, above, the AO disallows the brought forwarded losses of Rs. 3,08,21,712, whereas there is no such direction by the Ld. CIT(A). * In the other Order which is titled as "Order u/s. 250 r.w.s. 154 of Order u/s. 143(3) dated 10.03.2016 of the IT Act, 1961" and bears the same date of 31.03.2021, the AO simultaneously gives effect to the CIT(A) Order and also rectifies u/s. 154, the Order u/s. 143(3) dated 10.03.2016. Vide this order the AO disallows the brought f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.8 It is noted that the AO has forwarded vide his letter dated 13.04.2021, an Order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, giving consequential effect to the Ld.CIT(A)'s Order dated 28.12.2018, as detailed in Para 4.1 above. This Order is defective in so much as the Order disallows the brought forward losses of Rs. 3,08,21,712 for A.Y. 1995-96 to A.Y. 2007-08, since there is no direction of the Ld.CIT(A) to that effect. The AO while passing consequential Order giving effect to the Ld.CIT(A)'s Order cannot address the issues which have not been dealt with by the Ld.CIT(A) in his Order. Furthermore, the AO is also mistaken in so much as the said amount does not represent brought forward losses but is the unabsorbed depreciation and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e computation sheet and also notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act bearing the DIN. Subsequent thereto the only recourse left for the Officer is to rectify or make amends to the said Order, by the due process as prescribed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 6.11 It is quite curious to note that both the above Orders, one forwarded vide his letter dated 13.04.2021 and the other vide his letter dated 21.04.2021, bear the same DIN which has been entered "manually". 6.12 In view of the above facts and circumstances, one finds that there is considerable merit in both these grounds raised by the appellant i.e., "legality and validity of order passed u/s. 250 r.w.s.154 of the Act" and regarding "passing the order without ....