Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” �ायपीठ पुणेम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. PAN: AAFFS 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Suhas Bora – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 13/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune for the Assessment Year 2007-08 dated 18.07.2019 arising out of order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8) has erred in confirming the withdrawal of claim for the carry forward of loss for A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 and A.Y.2006- 07 without verifying the facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8) has erred in confirming the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 and thereby withdrawing loss allowed in the assessment made under section 143(3) of Income Taxact,1961 without appreciating the fact that this is not mistake apparent from records and hence cannot be rectified under 154 of the Act.
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8) has erred on facts not allowing carry forward of loss even though return for A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004- 05 , and A.Y.2006-07 was filed originally within the due date of section 139(1) and which were never revised under section 139(5). 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8) has erred in law not allowing carry forward of loss, even though return for A.Y. 2005-06 was filed originally within the due date of section 139(1) as Positive Income and subsequently return was revised under section 139(5) of Income Tax Act" 1961 as negative Income. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8) has erred in confirming the objection raised by the AO in the remand report submitted, where the AO could not confirm whether the Assessee was liable for audit u/s 44AB of the Act and hence confirmed the objection of carry forward of losses claimed in the original returns filed by the Assessee without verifying the facts that the Assessee has submitted his say that the books were liable for Audit vide letter dated 25/08/2016 submitted in response to the points referred in remand report 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8) has erred in disallowing the carry forward of losses on the ground that the notice of hearing could not be served on the Assessee, and hence he failed to appear before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8). 7. The appellant prays for admission of Additional grounds/ Additional evidence if any required to support its case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of trading of paper. The assessee filed the Return of Income declaring Rs.Nil on 27.10.2007. For the year under consideration, the assessee declared Gross Profit of Rs.17,83,485/- and Net Profit of Rs.4,35,907/- on a turnover of about Rs.4.78 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer(AO) to furnish the details by issuing notice under section 142(1) to which the assessee complied with. The AO
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
accepted the returned income. However, the AO passed rectification order on 25.03.2013 under section 154 of the Act stating that the return of income for A.Y.2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 were not filed in time, hence as per provisions of section 139(3) r.w.s 80 of the Act the carry forward of the losses for these years were not allowed. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard both sides, perused the material available on record. In the first appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant part of the order of the ld.CIT(A) is as under: Quote, “6.4 As can be seen the AO has objected to carry forward losses to appellant inhis remand report. However, the AO stated that due to non-availability ofrecords it couldn’t be stated that the appellant was liable for audit u/s 44AB ofthe Act or not.
6.5 The Appellant further submitted Trading A/c whereas total turnover for the years is stated as given in table below. Prima facie, looking at the turnover, the appellant was liable to audit its book of accounts, however, it is seen that turnover goes up because of one entry “Transfer of L.R. Sale”. The same can be seen as under:
AY Total turnover Transfer of LR/RR Sale 2003-04 53,57,656 46,74,782 2004-05 1,80,18,933 1,77,92,666 2005-06 4,19,23,491 3,91,77,162
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
As can be seen that the total turnover is the result of only one entry i.e.” Transfer of LR Sale” in P&L account. If this entry was not there in P&L account, the appellant total turnover would be very much less as compared to what it is shown and books of accounts would not be auditable at all. It is also noticed that the appellant has not shown any opening stock and Closing stock for the above all years.
6.6 To further clarify details of books of account, notice of hearing was issue to the appellant on given address however, the same came unserved with remarked “left" by postal authorities. The appellant has left the address without giving any intimation to this office. It is primary responsibility of the appellant to inform the department for any change of address.
6.7 In the case of Harvinder Singh Jaggivs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 67 taxmann.com 109 (Delhi - Trib.), the Hon’ble ITAT stated as under;
7.8In the case of the assessee, there is one important fact which needs to be noticed is that the New address of the assessee in the affidavit, i.e., D-13B, 1st Floor, East of Kaiiash, Delhi, which is different from the address provided in the return of income i.e. Deita Exports, B- 33/1, Group Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi, which goes to show that the assessee has changed his address and the new address was not communicated to the Income Tax Department. The onus to communicate the correct address or change of address to the Department either applying through prescribed form for making correction in permanent account number (PAN) database or communication to the Assessing Officer was on the assessee, which
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
the assesses failed to do so. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for selection of case under scrutiny, in the case of assessee has been generated through the income tax department application software, in which address has been picked up from PAN database and the notice was sent by the Income Tax Officer before the limitation of service of notice i.e. more than two months prior to the limitation. In the present case, the fact of change of address by the assessee has not been highlighted and therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the cases cited by the assessee. in view of change of place, the assessee himself is responsible, if at all the notice was not received by him at the old address. ” (Emphasis supplied)
In the above case Hon’ble ITAT held that if the appellant has changed his address, it is his responsibility to inform the department for the same. The appellant can opt any mode to update his communication address, however, it is primary responsibility of the assessee to inform the department in any of change of communication address. It is also seen once, the notice of hearing was duly served upon the appellant, and however, the appellant chose not to comply that implies that the appellant himself has no interest in pursuing his own appeal.
6.8 In absence of above details, it cannot be said that the appellant was liable for audit of book of accounts. During the assessment proceedings, the AO also did not mention anywhere that the appellant was liable for audit u/s44 AB of the Act. In such case, the due date of filing of return will be in July and not in October and the appellant would be guilty of not filing return of income in time. Therefore, looking at the facts it is held that the AO has
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
rightly disallowed the carry forward losses for the AY 2003-04 to 2005-06. Accordingly Ground No.1 to 5 are DISMISSED” Unquote.
3.1. In this case, the assessee had claimed that return of income for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 were filed within time, as per section 139(1) of the Act. We have gone through the copies of the return of income filed by assessee in the paper book for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 (page 54 of the paper book) was filed on 17.10.2003, which is a fact admitted by the AO in the remand report dated 30.06.2016. The said Form No.2D of the return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 in the column documents attached mentions Audit Report and TDS Certificates. Thus, it means assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 along with Audit Report. In the paper book, page no.64 to 83 is the Audit Report. The assessee had filed copies of the audit report before the ld.CIT(A) also. Similarly, the return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 (page 84 of the paper book) was filed on 25.10.2014, mentions audit report in the documents attached. The said return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 also have statement of income which has mentioned following things :- Business Loss as below may please be allowed to be carried forward for set off in subsequent years. A.Y. AMOUNT 2003-2004 740 2004-2005 3,248,735
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
3.2 The original return of income for A.Y.2005-06 was filed on 25th October, 2005. In the paper book, at page no.109 is the Form No.2D i.e. first page of the return of the income and on page no.110 is statement of income for A.Y. 2005-06. The said statement of income have following note :
Note: Business loss as below may please be allowed to be carried forward for set off in subsequent years. A.Y. AMOUNT 2004-2005 1,502,706 3.3 REMAND REPORT OF AO Relevant part of the remand report dated 30.06.2016 submitted by the AO to the ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as under :- Quote, “On going through the copy of returns as well as the intimation u/s.143(1) for the A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2005-06, it is seen that the returns for the above years had been filed as under: Asstt. Year Date of filing Original/Revised Income/loss returned 2003-04 17.10.2003 Original (-) 740 2004-05 25.10.2004 -do- (-)32,48,735 2005-06 25.10.2005 -do- Nil 30.10.2006 revised (-)45,96,639 5. From the above, it is seen that for A.Y.2003-04 and 2004-05, the assessee has filed its original return declaring losses as stated above With regard to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee filed its original return showing Nil income whereas the revised return filed on 30.10.2006 showed loss of Rs.45,96,639/-. From the date of filing of the returns as mentioned above, it is seen that all the returns were filed in the month of October. However, in the absence of case records, it is not verifiable whether the assessee’s accounts were subject to audit for the above years. From the rectification order passed which is the subject matter of present appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, it is not clear as to the due date of filing of the returns and it is only mentioned that “in view of
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
the provisions of section 139(3) r.w.s. 80 of the I.T Act, 1961, which are self explanatory” the A.O proceeded to pass the order u/s.154 on 25.3.2014 and the loss for A.Ys 2003-04 to 2005-06 earlier allowed to be carried forward were withdrawn.” Unquote .
3.4 Before analyzing the facts, lets understand the relevant provision of the Act. The explanation to Section 139(1) is as under : Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "due date" means,— (a ) where the assessee is— (i) a company; or (ii) a person (other than a company) whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, the 31st day of October of the assessment year; (b) in the case of a person other than a company, referred to in the first proviso to this sub-section, the 31st day of October of the assessment year; (c) in the case of any other assessee, the 31st day of July of the assessment year. Thus, for the purpose of Section 139(1) of the Act, the due date for filling return of income for person whose accounts are required to be audited was 31st Day of October of the Assessment Year.
3.5 Thus, the AO had admitted in the remand report that return of income for A.Y.2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 were filed in the month of October. The AO’s contention was that in the absence of records, the AO was unable to verify whether the assessee’s case required audit or not!. Thus, the AO has not denied in the remand report that for the audited cases the due date for filing returns were 31st October of the respective assessment years, means for A.Y. 2003-04 it would have been 31st October, 2003, for A.Y.2004-05 it
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
would have been 31st October, 2004 and for A.Y.2005-06 it would have been 31st October, 2005. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on the ground that due to the absence of the records, it cannot be verified whether assessee’s turnover was more than the limit mentioned for audit purpose. The ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that if the entry “transfer of LR Sales” is removed, then the turnover is less than the limit required for audit. Before us, the assessee has filed copies of the audit reports, copies of the submissions made before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has not commented on the copies of the audit report filed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) in para 6.2 has reproduced submission of the assessee. These submissions also mention the date of filing return for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 (original return). The ld.CIT(A) has merely mentioned that it cannot be verified whether assessee’s case falls under auditable case or not!. The order under section 154 is silent on the fact of dates of filing of return of income for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06.
3.6 However, the AO before, passing the order u/s 154 has not verified the records properly. Because, the order u/s 143(1) mentions following facts: AY Due date of Date of filling Total Income /Loss filling return return assesse 2003-04 31/10/2003 17/10/2003 Loss 740/- 2004-05 31/10/2004 25/10/2004 Loss 32,54,820/-
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
Thus the department had passed order u/s 143(1) for the above years and accepted that the return was filed within the time allowed u/s 139(1) and had also determined the loss.
3.7 We have perused the Original Return of Income for AY 2005- 06, which was filed before 31st October 2005. The assessee in its paper book filed before us has submitted copy of Audit Report which is dated 30/9/2005. The said copy of Audit report was filed before the CIT(A) also which fact has not been doubted by the Ld.DR.
3.8 Therefore, after analyzing all these facts we are of the considered opinion, that the Assessee’s case falls under the category of the case whose accounts are required to be audited, hence, the assessee was required to file the return of income on or before 31st October of the respective assessment year. It is an admitted fact by the AO in the remand report that Return of Income for AY 2003-04, 2004-05, were filed before 31st October of the respective assessment years. Also, the original return for AY 2005-06 was filed on 25/10/2005. It means it was filed within the due date mentioned in Section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, the returns for AY 2003-04, 2004- 05 and original return for AY 2005-06 were filed before the due date mentioned in the Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, as per Section 139(3) rws80 of the Act, the loss claimed by the assessee in these
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
returns was eligible for set off and carry forward. The computation of Income for AY 2005-06 filed along with Original return (page 110 of paper book) is reproduced as under : Net Profit as per P&L a/c 17,46,769/- Less set off of B/F losses AY 2003-04 740/- AY 2004-05 17,46,029/- Total Income NIL Carry Forward of loss of AY 2004-05 Rs. 15,02,706/- 4. We have already mentioned that the loss for AY 2004-05 as per the computation of income filed by the assessee for AY 2004-05 was Rs.32,48,735/- , but the loss determined as per Section 143(1) for AY 2004-05 is Rs.32,54,820/- so after set off against the income of AY 2005-06, the carry forward loss will be Rs.15,08,051/-.
4.1 As far as AY 2006-07 is concerned the AO himself in the order u/s 154, has accepted that the return for AY 2006-07 was filed within time and he allowed the loss of AY 2006-07. We do not wish to disturb this fact.
4.2 Therefore, the assessee shall be allowed to Carry forward the loss of Rs.15,08,051/- plus the loss accepted by AO for AY 2006-07 to AY 2007-08. Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT(A) and AO is modified to the extent discussed above.
Accordingly, the Ground No.3 and 5 of the assessee are allowed.
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
Ground Number 4 : 5. In the Ground No.4 the assessee has claimed that the Loss claimed in the revised return for AY 2005-06 which was filed on 31/10/2006 shall be allowed as original return was filed showing positive return.
5.2 We do not find merit in the argument of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the Revised return for AY 2005-06 was filed beyond the due date mentioned in the Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, as per Section 139(3) rws 80 of the Act, the loss claimed in the said revised return is not eligible to be carry forwarded. Hon’ble SC in the case of PCIT vs Wipro Ltd,446 ITR1(SC) has held as under : Quote, “9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. But a revised return of income, under section 139(5) cannot be filed, to withdraw the claim and subsequently claiming the carried forward or set-off of any loss.” Unquote.
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
5.3 On the identicalfacts Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v/s CIT in ITA no.IT APPEAL NOS.162 & 163 OF 2003 vide order dated 18thFebruary, 2015, has held as under : Quote, “ 11. Section 80, as amended and as it stood on the relevant day, has been quoted above which is once again set out herein : "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139 or within such further time as may be allowed by the Incometax Officer, shall be carried forward and set off under subsection (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A." 12. Even if it is contended that sub-section 3 of Section 139 is the successor of sub- section (2A) of Section 22 of the 1922 Act, there can be no denial to the fact that section 80 of the 1961 Act was not there. Section 80 begins with a non-obstante clause. Section 80 finds place in Chapter VI. The assessee obviously is seeking to get benefit of the provisions contained in Chapter-VI. The provisions of Chapter VI are regulated by section 80 which emphatically lays down that the benefit of carry forward of losses cannot be allowed unless the return has been filed within the time provided in sub-section (1) of Section 139 or within such further time as may be allowed by the ITO. Admittedly, the assessee did not file return within the time prescribed by subsection (1) or within the time extended by the ITO. There is, as such, nothing that the Court can do to assist the assessee. 13. Mr. Bagchi, after the judgement was dictated, submitted that the returns were filed declaring profits bona fide and advance taxes were paid in support thereof. It was a fortuitous circumstance that it transpired that the assessee had really suffered
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
loss and therefore, it transpired to be a return of loss but initially it was not a return of loss. It was a return of income. Assuming, everything submitted by Mr. Bagchi to be correct there is no wayout to help the assessee from the net of section 80 quoted above. 14. Further submission was advanced by Mr. Bagchi that section 80 does not apply to the returns declaring income. This submission is altogether devoid of any merit. The question to ask is, is the assessee asking for benefit under sections 72,73 and 74 ? If the answer is yes, section 80 is bound to apply, whether it is a return of loss or profit ?” Unquote.
5.4 Therefore, respectfully, following the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, it is held that the loss claimed in the revised return for AY 2005-06, which was filed beyond the time allowed in Section 139(1) is not eligible for Carry Forward.
5.5 Now, the question remains, whether, such disallowance can be made u/s154 in AY 2007-08 ?
5.6 The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sirsa Industries v/s CIT 147 ITR 238 has observed as under : Quote, “ There is no dispute with the proposition that the ITO can take recourse to the proceedings under section 154 of the Act only if there is an error on the face of the order. It is also well settled that the proceedings under section 147 emanate when there is information received by the ITO regarding the escapement of system. Both these conditions are fulfilled in the present case. In view of the decision in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), the assessment framed by the ITO allowing deductions on the amount of Central sales tax will, prima facie, be against law. If
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
a mistake of fact apparent on the record of the assessment order can be rectified under section 154, there is no reason why a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious, cannot be similarly rectified. (In this connection see M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC). Similarly, when a decision of the Supreme Court regarding construction of a particular statutory provisions comes to the notice of an ITO, it constitutes information as envisaged by section 147 of the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT[1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CWT v. Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 461 (SC) and V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT/EPT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC).
The last submission of Mr. Jain has simply to be stated to be rejected. If certain set of facts can form the subject-matter for action under two separate and different statutory provisions, it is for the competent authority to decide under which particular section he has to take action. It is the petitioners' (1 and 2) case that the notices which are subject-matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 883 of 1976, were beyond time prescribed for taking action under section 147. They were, however, within limitation, prescribed for proceedings under section 154. So, the action of the ITO in proceedings under section 154, after the proceedings under section 147 have become time-barred, cannot be said to be mala fide.” Unquote.
5.7 The Hon’ble SC has observed in the case of Maharana Mills Ltd vs. ITO 36 ITR 350 as under : Quote, “The question therefore is was it a mistake apparent from the record which the Income-tax Officer has rectified. It was submitted that recalculation is not rectifying a mistake which is apparent from the record. The words used in the
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
section are "apparent from the record" and the record does not mean only the order of assessment but it comprises all proceedings on which the assessment order is based and the Income-tax Officer is entitled for the purpose of exercising his jurisdiction under section 35 to look into the whole evidence and the law applicable to ascertain whether there was an error. If he doubts the written down value of the previous year it is open to him to check up the previous calculations and if he finds any mistake it is open to him to make fresh calculations in accordance with the law applicable including the rules made thereunder.” Unquote.
5.8 Under section 154 mistake apparent from record can be rectified. The word “record” as interpreted by Hon’ble SC includes the assessment record of earlier years. In this case it is a fact that the Revised Return for AY 2005-06 was filed beyond the due date mentioned in Section 139(1) of the Act , hence , as per section 139(3) r.w.s 80, the loss claimed in revised return was not eligible for carry forward. But the AO had allowed it to be carried forward in the assessment order. This is a mistake apparent from records. Therefore, the AO had jurisdiction to rectify the impugned mistake of allowing carry Forward of loss claimed through the revised return which was filed beyond the due date mentioned u/s139(1). Therefore, in our opinion the AO had rightly did not allowed the carry forward of loss claimed in the revised return for AY 2005-06 in the rectification order. Therefore, the rectification order is upheld to the extent of
ITA No.1547/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Sharada Paper Company Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Pune[A]
carry forward loss claimed in the revised return. Accordingly, the ground number 4 of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th September, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 29th September, 2022/ SGR* आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. िवभागीय�ितिनिध,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड�फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.