TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... handover documents to the new counsel of the assessee Mr. V.S. Aggarwal. An affidavit in support has also been filed by the earlier counsel Mr Juneja accepting his inability to handover the papers on medical grounds. The ld. DR has no objection. Considering the affidavit of the earlier counsel Mr. Juneja, we find that there was no wilful neglect on the part of the assessee and as such the delay of 93 (ninety three) days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: "1. The Addl./JCIT(A) has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of DDIT CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) dated 07.08.2023in determining the Income at Rs. 34,63,720/- against nil income in the ITR filed u/s 139(1) on 16.09.2022 while passing the order u/s 250 of the Act dt. 16.07.2024. 2. That the Addl./JCIT(A)has erred in not allowing the set- off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,50,49,432 as reflected in Schedule-UD of the (ITR) and unabsorbed brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 49,46,336, comprising Rs. 23,62,230 relating to AY 2017-18 and Rs. 25,84,106 relating to AY 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed for the purpose of set off. 4.2 Moreover, the issues regarding non consideration of the claim of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs. 1,50,49,432/- and the disallowance of Rs. 15,549/- on account of late deposit of GST u/s 43B has also been agitated in this appeal. 5. The matter carried in appeal has been has been dismissed by the Ld JCIT (A) in absence of any year wise breakup of losses in the return, even though he has acknowledged the carry forward of business loss of 25.84 lakhs (relating to the assessment year 2020-21only), (para 4.2.4.1 of appellate order ), and has observed that in the return for the Asst year 2020-21, earlier years losses are not reflected, and as such the losses carried forward for the Asst year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 23.62 lakhs has not been discussed. 5.1 The relevant observation of the first appellate authority are as follows: "4.2.6.1 From the relevant part of the ITR reproduced above, it is seen that the appellant had declared a total loss of Rs. 1,25,40,285/- brought forward from preceding A.Y.s which is not only completely against the provision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2020-21, against the returned income of Rs. 34.48 lakhs, for the year under consideration and for easy reference he furnished a chart to put forth his argument that the assessee is entitled to set off of losses amounting to Rs. 49.46 lakhs relating to AY 2017-18 and AY 2020-21 as under: Asst Year: Amount of Loss: Period of EIGHT Remarks : years will expire on: AY 2012-13 and 2013-14: 75,93,949.00 31.03.2021 31.03.2022 AO disallowed Correctly AY: 2017-18 23,62,230.00 31.03.2026 The claim of assessee is only this portion within time limit AY 2020-21 25,84,106.00 31.03.2029 49,46,336.00 6.1 Referring to the above table he submitted that the brought forward losses for the A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 amounting to Rs. 75.93 lakhs has not been allowed as the period of eight years has expired, but the loss for the A.Y. 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 23.62 lakhs and loss for the A.Y. 2020-21 amounting to Rs. 25.84 lakhs, whose return of income has already been filed within due time u/s 139(1) should have been allowed as per provisions of section 72 of the Act because the same is within the period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... off observing that no adjustment was made by CPC and no submission furnished by assessee, but the very fact that the final tax demand has been raised without off - setting the unabsorbed depreciation against current years income, is very much evident from the intimation u/s 143(1). He further submitted that the same is apparent from the contents of the ITR of previous years and as per provisions of section 32(2) of the Act, the same is to be carried forward indefinitely, without restrictions and is to be allowed to be set off against current years income. Referring to the tax demand of Rs. 5.71 lakhs, raised in intimation u/s 143(1), the Ld AR argued that this demand indicates that claim for unabsorbed depreciation has not been allowed in processing, which legally should have been allowed. 7.1 In support of his argument he relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT v Haryana Hotels Ltd [2005] 276 ITR 521 (Punjab and Haryana), where the Hon'ble court has observed that : "there is no provision under the Act which makes it mandatory for the assessee to file return for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is to be not....