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

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).

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

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

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 ITA No. 6 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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