RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR GAURAV AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-10 Mumbai dated 14.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts in dismissing the appeal of the deceased assessee in limine by not condoning the delay occurred in filing the appeal before him, rejecting the genuine reason submitted to him due to which such delay took place.

2 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual indulged in the business of running warehouses, which is a specified business as defined in section 35AD of the Act w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14. For the A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee filed a return of loss of Rs. 8, 24, 00,574/- under the head business on 26.03.2014 u/s. 139(4) of the Act, which is beyond the time limit prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. The return for the year under consideration the assessee declared a positive income of Rs. 13, 65,575/- before set-off of unabsorbed B/f losses from specified business u/s. 73A of the Act on 23.08.2019 u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the claim of the assessee u/s. 73A of the Act was denied amounting to Rs. 13, 65,575/- (Amount equal to positive income declared from specified business). The assessee being aggrieved with the same filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing of the same by 1070 days. The assessee’s legal heir was there on records before the Ld. CIT (A) and here also the appeal is being filed by the legal heir of the deceased assessee. The legal heir of the deceased assessee being further aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) preferred the present appeal before us.

3 We have gone through the intimation issued by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) of the Act, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the claim of the assessee was allowed for the A.Y.s 20104-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 but as there was an amendment in section 139(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2016, wherein loss from specified business was allowed to be set-off only if the return for the year incurring loss has been filed within the time limit as prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. This amendment CPC, Bengaluru perceived as retrospective change, hence disallowed the claims of the assessee for the A.Y.s 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Although, the claims of the assessee, for A.Y.s 2017-18 and 2018-19 ultimately allowed, by the coordinate bench, Jaipur (Copies of the order submitted before us.)