YASHPAL SINGH YADAV,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(3)91), JHANSI

ITA 443/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 October 2026AY 2016-1722 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a belated return and claimed a short-term capital loss, which was disallowed for carry forward by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) based on Section 80 read with Section 139(3). The Tribunal, respectfully following the order of the Chandigarh Tribunal in a similar case concerning business loss carry forward under Section 35D, reversed the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the AO/CPC should not deny the carry forward of the current year's loss simply because the return was filed belatedly. The determination of the loss is one aspect, and its carry forward is another. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the carry forward of the short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merit of invoking Section 74 of the Act, and the application of Section 74 would be open for consideration by the AO in the subsequent year when the assessee claims set off of this capital loss. The other grounds of appeal were left undecided as they became academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yashpal Singh Yadav, filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2016-17 beyond the due date by 39 days, declaring an income of Rs. 37,88,310/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total income at the returned income. The assessee had sold two properties, incurring a total capital loss of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. The AO did not allow the carry forward of this capital loss. The assessee appealed to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Bhubaneswar, with a delay of 2738 days, which was condoned. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the AO's disallowance based on Section 80 read with Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that a return must be filed within the due date to carry forward losses. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of the carry forward of short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- incurred by the assessee during AY 2016-17, contrary to the provisions of Section 80 read with Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) erred in mechanically applying Section 80 read with Section 139(3) without considering the genuine nature of the loss and the fact that it was disclosed in the return. - The delay in filing the return was due to hospitalization, and the same medical circumstances that justified condoning the delay in filing the appeal should have justified condoning the delay in filing the return. - The provisions of Section 80 read with Section 139(3) should be interpreted strictly and narrowly, and rigid application results in grave injustice when the delay is beyond the assessee's control. - The CIT(A) failed to follow the binding judicial pronouncement of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of International Fresh Farm Products (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80,Section 139(3),Section 74,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 35D,Section 79

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Jerath, CA
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER:BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 passed in appeal No ADDL/JCIT (A) BHUBANESWAR/10003/2015-16 by the ADDL/JCIT (A), Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A), u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2016-17, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

2.

The assessee filed his return of income on 12.09.2016 declaring an income of Rs.37,88,310/-. The return was filed beyond the due date with a delay of 39 days. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under the category of limited scrutiny. The AO noted that the assessee is a salaried person and had earned salary from Anya Agro & Fertilizers Pvt

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →