DATAMINDS TECHNOLOGY LLP,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2287/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 October 2022AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper finding on the eligibility of set off for the brought forward losses from AY 2010-11 to 2014-15. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to set off brought forward business losses from AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 against AY 2018-19 business income. The CIT(A) order discussed the lapse of AY 2009-10 losses but failed to provide a finding on the eligibility of losses from AY 2010-11 to 2014-15.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of set off of brought forward losses. Whether the CIT(A) provided a proper finding on the eligibility of set off for specific assessment years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sharma
Hearing: 27/10/2022Pronounced: 27/10/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in A.Y.2018-19 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.CIT(A)-44, Mumbai/10219/2019-20 dated 12/03/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 15/07/2019 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

At the outset, the appeal is time barred by 124 days. The assessee had explained the reasons for the said delay vide condonation petition dated 01/09/2022. I am convinced with the said reason and condone the M/s. Dataminds Technologies LLP delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication.

3.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of set off of brought forward losses of A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2014-15 against the business income of A.Y.2018-19.

4.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. I find that assessee has sought to set off the brought forward business losses of A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2014-15 amounting to Rs.37,506/- against the business income of Rs.54,697/- in A.Y.2018-19. I find from para 4.1 of the order of ld. CIT(A) (NFAC), the non-eligibility of set off of loss pertaining to A.Y.2009-10 alone has been discussed as it had lapsed in A.Y.2017-18. Absolutely no finding has been given by the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) with regard to eligibility of set off of brought forward losses of A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2014-15 against the current year business income. Hence, I deem it fit and appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to give proper finding with regard to this aspect in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 27/10/2022

Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 27/10/2022

M/s. Dataminds Technologies LLP

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →