Loading judgment…
Facts
M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd., formed after a merger, faced reopened assessment u/s 147 by the AO, leading to additions. The assessee appealed, contending that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate its crucial ground concerning the non-consideration of tax paid by amalgamating companies and the erroneous restriction of carry-forward loss set-off.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the specific ground raised by the assessee regarding the tax credit from amalgamating companies. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate this ground afresh, providing the assessee due opportunity.
Key Issues
Failure of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the assessee's ground concerning the non-allowance of credit for tax paid by amalgamating companies and the incorrect restriction of carry-forward losses in a reassessment order.
Sections Cited
147, 119(2b), 154, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 22.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 28.03.2022.
The ground of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. Order of the NFAC/ Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The NFAC/ Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating / confirming the issue of taxes paid by amalgamating companies M/s.TTK Protective Device Ltd and its wholly owned subsidiary company M/s. TSL Techno Services. 2.1 The NFAC/Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the name of the company is mentioned as M/s. TSL Techno Services Limited instead of M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited. However, the PAN is correctly mentioned as AABCT3312J.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income u/s. 119(2b) of the Act consequent to the merger with M/s. TTK Protective Devices Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary M/s.
TSL Techno Services. The A.O has reopened the assessment and made certain additions. Aggrieved with the additions, the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal in Appeal No.NFAC/2016-17/10131343 dated 22.02.2024. The assessee has raised the ground against the order of A.O that in ground No.4 before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has raised a ground that A.O has omitted to consider the tax paid by amalgamating company M/s. TTK Protective Devices Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary M/s.
TSL Techno Services. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the same.
The Learned Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.4 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), where the assessee has raised the following ground:
“4. The Assessing Officer has made few errors while completing the reassessment order and based on the petition made by the appellant the Assessing Officer rectified some errors vide the order u/s.154 dated 21stApril2022 (DIN No.ITBA/REC/M/154_1/2022-23/104281 3970(1)) but erroneously considered the set-off of carry forward losses as Rs.83,70,000/- instead of Rs.3.63,78,483 and omitted to consider the taxes paid by amalgamating companies M/s. TTK Protective Devices Ltd and its wholly owned Subsidiary M/s. TSL Techno Services, The name of the Company is mentioned as M/s.TTK Protective Devices Limited instead of M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited. However, the PAN is correctly mentioned as AABCT 3312J.”
The Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the above ground, which reads as under:
“8. Ground No.4:- In this ground the appellant has contested the action of the AO of not allowing set-off of carry forward losses of Rs.3,63,78,483/- and restricting the same to Rs.83,70,000/-. UME TAX DEPART 8.1 During appellate proceedings, the appellant has not submitted any written submission for this ground. 8.2 I have perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal and submission of the appellant. I find from the assessment order that the issue under reference was not raised before AO and I find from the assessment order that the AO had proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of return of income filed by the appellant in response to notice u/s 148 declaring income of Rs.9,19,94,530/-. It is not clear as to whether the appellant had made such claim in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 or not. Therefore the AO is directed to verify the facts from the case record and allow the set-off brought forward losses as per law. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is partly allowed.”
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue of not giving credit of tax paid by amalgamating company M/s. TTK Protective Devices Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary M/s. TSL Techno Services.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, did not raise any objection to AR’s submission.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the ground No.4 , where the assessee has raised the ground of omitting to consider tax paid by the amalgamating companies. We, accordingly restore the matter back to the file of Ld CIT(A) and direct him/her to adjudicate the above ground in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced on 14th February, 2025.