RUSTOM SOLI SETHNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1406/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 June 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order and had not considered the details filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed business losses of ₹5,15,547/- on the grounds that the assessee was not engaged in any business activity. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance without considering the details provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of business losses without properly considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Jalppeth Vora, Ms. Swati A, ARs
Hearing: 05.03.2020Pronounced: 01.06..2020

O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-34, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 30.11.2018. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(2), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 16.03.2015 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

1.

The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing Business Loss of Rs.5,15,547/-on the ground that appellant was not engaged in any business activity during the year under consideration & therefore not entitled to claim any business expenses.

3.

I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I noted from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of business losses of ₹5,15,547/- first on the basis that the assessee’s interest income is offered under the head income from other sources and only income shown under the business is maintenance fee received. He also noted that the assessee’s development/ construction project was completed in the FY 2010-11 and he received O.C. in the month of April, 2011 for he said project. Hence, he was of the view that the assessee’s claim of business losses not related to business and he disallowed the same by holding that the expenses debited in the P&L account were not related to the project in progress and the

4.

I noted that the CIT(A) simply not considered any of the details filed before him, which were again filed before me in the shape of paper book consisting of pages 1 to 96. The details are already on the records of the Assessing Officer as well as before CIT(A). Since, the issue has not been considered by the CIT(A) rather CIT(A) has passed a very cryptic order vide Para 4.2 as under: - “4.2 The Assessing Officer had therefore, disallowed the whole Business Loss on the ground that there was no income accrued to the appellant by way of sales or any other business activity during the year under consideration. Thus, there was no businesses 2011-12. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not accept the arguments of the appellant. There is no business activity during the year under consideration. Thus, there was no business in 2011-12. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not accept the arguments of the appellant. There is no interference called for in the order of the Assessing Officer hence this ground of appellant is dismissed.”

5.

Hence, I set aside this matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in term of the assessee’s details filed before me, which need to consider in proper prospective. Needless to

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →