Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 20.8.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2016-17. The only issue urged in this issue relates to head under which addition made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] is to be included.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2018. Subsequently, the A.O. passed rectification order u/s 154 of the Act on 15.2.2019 in order to give
M/s. I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd., Bangalore
Page 2 of 3 set off of brought forward losses. However, while computing the total income, the A.O. has added u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.6,52,50,000/- separately to the total income, without including the same under any of the heads, i.e., the AO gave set off of the brought forward losses, computed taxable income and then added the addition u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly the Total income was computed.
The assessee challenged the order passed u/s 154 of the Act by filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that there is no tax effect on the methodology adopted by the A.O. since no additional tax liability gets imposed on the appellant.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the treatment given by the A.O. may affect the quantum of losses to be carried forward by the assessee. She further submitted that the assessee has also filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and hence, the question as to whether there is any additional tax liability or not on account of different treatment given by the A.O. would be determinable only after the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Under these set of facts, the Ld. A.R. prayed that this appeal may also be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so that he could dispose of both the appeals of the assessee, viz., appeal filed against order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the appeal filed against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act together.
We heard Ld. D.R. who did not object to the prayer put forth by the assessee.
M/s. I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd., Bangalore
Page 3 of 3 6. Having regard to the submissions made by Ld. A.R., we are also of the view that the issues contested in this appeal may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A), since it will be easy to appreciate the contentions of the assessee, if both the appeals of the assessee are disposed together. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.