MRS. MEHER PHEROZ PUDUMJEE,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 638/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 September 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AY 2016-17 return was filed timely within the extended due date and the loss was determined in a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). Consequently, the CPC's reason for disallowance was factually incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and to allow the benefit of brought forward losses.

What were the facts?

The assessee's brought forward capital loss of Rs. 2.14 crore from AY 2016-17 was disallowed by CPC via intimation under Section 143(1) for AY 2021-22, alleging belated filing of the AY 2016-17 return. The assessee's appeal and subsequent rectification application against this disallowance were both dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of brought forward capital loss due to alleged belated filing of the original return was valid, given that the return was filed timely and accepted in a scrutiny assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri C. N. Naniwadekar
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Hearing: 07.08.2025Pronounced: 08.09.2025

Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mrs. Meher Pheroz Vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune. Pudumjee, 5 Clover Garden, Naylor Road, Camp, Pune- 411001. PAN : AGNPP3413B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri C. N. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2021-22.

2.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. In the fact and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the disallowance of brought forward capital loss of Rs.2,14,51,895/- for AY 2016-17 made by CPC on the grounds that return for AY 2016-17 was filed late when in fact the said return for AY 2016-17 was filed within the due date.

2. In the fact and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in not 250 dated 18/01/2024 and consequently rejecting the request for rectification. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add to, withdraw or modify any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for assessment year 2021-22 on 30.12.2021 within extended due date of 15.03.2022 declaring income of Rs.1,68,82,930/-. The return of income was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the IT Act on 22.04.2022 accepting the income returned by the assessee and also issuing the refund. However, in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) by CPC the brought forward capital loss of Rs.2,14,51,895/- originating from assessment year 2016 – 17 was disallowed by alleging that the return of income of assessment year 2016-17 was filed belatedly.

4. The assessee preferred an appeal against the above intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the IT act. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee then filed rectification application u/s 154 of the IT Act before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for rectifying the appellate order since it was based on wrong finding of fact. This rectification application was also dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by observing Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may confirm reduce enhance or annul the assessment but not revive his order.

5.

It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that both the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC u/s 250 as well as u/s 154 of the IT Act are unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the reason given by CPC that the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 was furnished beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act is not correct, since the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 was filed on 28.07.2016 within the extended due date of 05.08.2016. Ld. AR further submitted that the case of the assessee for assessment year 2016-17 was subject to scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the IT Act and vide order dated 22.11.2018 the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act wherein no addition was made and the loss of current year to be carried forward was determined at Rs.2,14,51,895/- by the Assessing Officer. Ld. AR accordingly requested before the bench to allow the carry forward of brought forward loss of Rs.2,14,15,895/- which was brought forward from assessment year 2016-17.

7. Ld. DR appearing from side of Revenue relied on the order passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.

8.

We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that admittedly the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 was filed timely on 28.07.2016 i.e. within the extended due date of 05.08.2016. We further find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 was filed on 28.07.2016 and was verified thereafter and therefore in the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2016-17 the return of income was accepted as it is by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the reason mentioned by CPC is factually incorrect & therefore in our considered opinion both the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC are also not correct. Accordingly, in view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set- aside both the orders passed u/s 250 as well as u/s 154 of the IT Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the fact of timely filing of income tax return from assessment year 2017-18 to

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →