TATA COMMUNICATIONS PAYMENT SOLUTIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3) (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 107/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the AO granted the carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation in subsequent years, no interference was needed on that ground. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow interest under Section 244A up to the date of refund issue, as per High Court precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in ATM management, filed its return which was accepted without additions. The assessee appealed, arguing the AO failed to issue a speaking order for carrying forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, and that interest under Section 244A was short-granted.

What were the issues?

Whether a speaking order is required for carrying forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation when no additions were made, and whether interest under Section 244A should be granted up to the date of refund issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(2),Section 72,Section 244A,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Heman Desai &, Shri Kaikobad Damania, ARs’
For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Hearing: 12.05.2022Pronounced: 23.05.2022

1. This appeal is filed by Tata Communications Payment Solutions Limited (the appellant/ assessee) for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NAFAC) [the learned CIT (A)] dated 29th November, 2011 vide DIN & Order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037321569(1).

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“Being aggrieved by the Order dated 29th November 2021 passed under section 250 of the income tax Act

1.

No direction given to the Learned AO to pass a speaking order for allowing carry forward of losses claimed by the Appellant:

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Learned AO to pass a speaking order for allowing carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation and business loss of earlier years and current year as per the provisions of section 32(2) and 72 of the Act, respectively.

2.

Short grant of interest under section 244A of the Act

a) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not allowing interest under section 244A of the Act, on refund, up to the date of refund cheque. b) The Appellant submits that the learned AO be directed to recompute and grant interest under section 244A of the Act, up to the date of issue of refund cheque and in accordance with law.

The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted based on the said ground of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The brief fact of the case shows that assessee is engaged in the business of ATM management and allied services. It filed its return of income on 30th November, 2015 declaring total income of ₹217,36,12,673/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny and assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 12th December, 2017. The return of income was accepted as it is and no addition / disallowance was made. The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) stating that there was no direction in the assessment order to carry forward assessed loss as business loss and also unabsorbed depreciation as per the provision of Section 32(2) and Section 72 of the Act. Assessee is also aggrieved with the order of learned Assessing Officer as not granting the interest under Section 244A of the Act up to the date of issue of refund cheque. The learned CIT (A) dismissed both the grounds. On the issue of carried forward loss of unabsorbed depreciation, he held that the order of the learned Assessing Officer is without making any adjustment to the total income of the assessee and therefore, there is no

4.

The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the business loss is required to be determined by the learned Assessing Officer for carry forward. The order of the learned Assessing Officer is silent on that. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, it was submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT vs. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. It is further stated that in assessee’s own case for AY 1999-2000 in ITA No. 7096/Mum/2016, the co-ordinate Bench has dealt with this issue in Paragraph no. 8, in favour of the assessee.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A) stating that there is no grievance as the returned income of the assessee is accepted.

6.

On the issue of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and carry forward of unabsorbed business loss, the Bench asked the learned Authorized Representative that whether the learned Assessing Officer in subsequent years has not

7.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. On the first issue, with respect to carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss, we find that the learned Assessing Officer has granted assessee the same in subsequent years and therefore, assessee is not aggrieved with that. Even otherwise, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to determine the carried forward of loss to be set off against subsequent years and up to which assessment year. Further, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation of current year in the subsequent year; we do not find any reason to give any direction to the learned Assessing Officer. On both these issues, the assessee has been granted requisite relief without any dispute by the learned Assessing Officer therefore, we do not find that it needs any interference from our side. Accordingly, ground no.1 of the appeal is dismissed.

8.

With respect to ground no. 2, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 1999-2000. In view of this, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to allow interest up to

9.

In the Result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.05.2022.

More judgments on Section 32(2)

All 321 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →