SANGRAH WAREHOUSE LIMITED,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BARODA

The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 01.05.2017 & 22.09.2017 arising in the assessment orders dated 23.03.2016 & 09.09.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15.

The grievances raised being common, both the cases were heard together and disposed of by the common order.

We shall first take up assessee’s appeal in AY 2013-14.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for AY 2013-14 read as under:

When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee pointed out that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. The learned AR for the assessee further pointed out that Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal appears to be inconsistent with the express positive finding of the CIT(A) in para 4.2 of & 2850/Ahd/17 [Sangrah Warehouse Ltd.] A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 3 - its order. It was submitted that the CIT(A) has actually granted relief towards carry forward of depreciation loss and therefore, the assessee is no longer aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A). It was thus fairly submitted that Ground No.3 may be treated as infructuous.

Adverting to Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal, the learned AR reiterated its submissions placed before the lower authorities and submitted that the business loss incurred in any year prior to the previous year in which the shareholding has undergone change ought to have been allowed and embargo placed in Section 79 of the Act ought not to have been applied.

The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In view of the averments made on behalf of the assessee, Ground No.3 is dismissed as not pressed being infructuous. We also do not see any merit in the grievance of the assessee for carry forward of business losses in view of the admitted position that change in shareholding has taken place as contemplated in Section 79 of the Act. The CIT(A) has examined the issue in perspective and has correctly applied the law in this regard. The CIT(A) has concluded that the case of the assessee is hit by Section 79 of the Act in so far as business losses are concerned. We do not see any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A).

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is dismissed.

The issues involved are identical. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue following its order passed in AY 2013-14. In parity with the & 2850/Ahd/17 [Sangrah Warehouse Ltd.] A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 4 - conclusion drawn in AY 2013-14, appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is also dismissed.

In the combined result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.