SHRI KANTILAL UGARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 299/AHD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 June 2022AY 2019-202 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 assessee had indeed filed the return for the relevant assessment year within the prescribed time. Therefore, the disallowance of the set off of brought forward loss was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed set off of brought forward long term capital loss, but the CPC disallowed it stating the previous year's return was filed late. The assessee disputed this, providing proof of timely filing, but the CPC disagreed.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of set off of brought forward long term capital loss was justified when the previous year's return was filed within the due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged the correctness of the order dated 25th October 2021, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of processing of return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-20 on the following grounds:-

1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in points of law and facts.

2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not allowing set off of brought forward long term capital loss of Rs 1,53,158 of Asst Year 2011-12. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in charging interest under section 234C of Income Tax Act of Rs 1,962.

4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in granting refund of Rs 1,24,329 instead of actual refund of Rs 1,56,620.

2. The material facts are not in dispute. The impugned disallowance was made in the course of processing of return 143(1) by the Assessing Officer (CPC) on the short ground “Disallowance of loss claimed, as the Income Tax Return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 –u/s 143(1)(a)(iii)” and the assessee has disputed this claim by making a submission through the e-portal to the effect that “Return of Income for AY 2011-12 was filed on 31/07/2011 vide receipt no 0621002696, with ITO, Ward 6(2), Ahmedabad. The return of Income was filed in time. Kindly correct your database. The set off is rightly claimed by me while filing ROI for AY 2019-20”. The plea of the assessee is summarily dismissed by the Assessing Officer (CPC) by observing that “disagreed”. A copy of the screenshot showing the objection raised by the Assessing Officer (CPC), the reply given by the assessee, and the disposal of the said reply by the Assessing Officer (CPC) was also filed before us. The Assessing Officer (CPC) thus proceeded ahead with declining set off of the loss carried forward. Aggrieved by the adjustment so made by the Assessing Officer (CPC), assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us.

3.

We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.

4.

We find that, as evident from a copy of the income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 at page 9 of the paper book, that the assessee had duly filed the income tax return, for the assessment year 2010-11, well within the time permitted u/s. 139 (i) i.e. on 31st July 2011. In this view of the matter, the very foundation of impugned adjustment under section 143(1) is wholly unsustainable in law. We, therefore, vacate the impugned action of the Assessing Officer to allow the set off of loss brought forward from the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee, accordingly, get the relief for set off of long term capital loss of Rs. 1,53,158/-.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 3rd day of June, 2022.

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →