M/S. P.N.G JEWELLERY & GEMS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

Shri M.R. Bhagwat, the ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interest to prosecute the grounds raised in appeal in ITA No. 1432/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 and prayed to accord permission to withdraw the same. Accordingly, the assessee is permitted to withdraw the appeal in ITA No. 1432/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 and the same is dismissed as withdrawn.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Now, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No. 1431/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 filed by the assessee. The ld. AR, Shri M.R. Bhagwat submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the validity of reopening of assessment raised in ground No. 1 and prayed to dismiss the same as not pressed. Accordingly, ground No. 1 is dismissed as not pressed.

Regarding the other issues raised in ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the appeal, it is noted that the assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2006-07 on 23-10-2007 declaring total income of Rs.6,71,38,401/-. The Assessing Officer completed assessment by determining loss of Rs.44,52,858/- by allowing set off of additions made in A.Y. 2006-07. In First Appellate Proceedings, the said additions were deleted and the CIT(A) proposed enhancement of income in the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee reported no objection for enhancement subject to a situation where the order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2006-07 should not be reversed.

Before us, Ms. Nandita Kanchan placed on record a letter dated 24- 09-2019 issued by the office of DCIT, Circle-12, Pune stating that the respondent-Revenue has accepted the order of CIT(A)-11 in deleting the additions for A.Y. 2006-07 and no further appeal recommended, so therefore, it is clear that the situation as anticipated by the assessee that the order of CIT(A) may be reversed in further Appellate Proceedings does not arise at all. Therefore, as rightly held by the CIT(A) in the order for A.Y. 2007-08 which is impugned before us that when the additions were deleted involving set off, the enhancement is to be made in the subsequent year i.e. year under consideration. Therefore, we find no infirmity in his order in directing the Assessing Officer to enhance the total income of assessee by Rs.7,22,57,618/- for the year under consideration. It is only a concern of Shri M.R. Bhagwat, the ld. AR that there should not be double taxation for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08 and prayed to issue appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer to give appeal effect for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, simultaneously. We find force in the arguments of Shri M.R. Bhagwat, the ld. AR, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed here-in-above, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and we are in an agreement with the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) in paras 31 and 33 of the impugned order and they are justified. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for his fresh consideration in terms of observations made by the CIT(A) in paras 31 and 33. It is needless to say the Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass order as indicated above. Thus, ground Nos. 2 to 4 are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, the appeal in ITA No. 1431/PUN/2017 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 1432/PUN/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.