AVALON INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 3(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8994/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 January 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowing carry forward losses based on a return previously considered valid was unsustainable in law. The Assessing Authority was directed to re-examine the carry forward losses.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 contested the disallowance of carry forward loss due to the return being filed after the due date. The Revenue's contradictory stance was noted, as they had previously treated the return as valid.

What were the issues?

Disallowance of carry forward losses on account of belated return filing; validity of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.8994/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Avalon Infrastructures Pvt. | Vs. | ACIT/DCIT, Ltd. | Circle-3(2), C/o- Malik & Co. (Advisors | Delhi-110002 & Advocates- Since 1927), 28A, Saket, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001 PAN:AAACG4212D (Appellant) | (Respondent)

Assessee by | Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Department by | Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing | 28.01.2026 Date of pronouncement | 28.01.2026

ORDER

This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the "CIT(A)/NFAC"], Delhi's DIN & Order No:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049074576(1), dated 24.01.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee's foremost substantive ground is directed against both the learned lower authorities' action in disallowing 01.11.2019 at 00:00:37 is a belated one which could not be treated as that u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned departmental authorities have themselves considered the assessee's impugned return as a valid one filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Their impugned stand therefore

carry forward loss for the sole reason that its return filed on

appears to be a mutually contradictory and in not entertaining

the assessee's carry forward losses at in the same time is not

sustainable in law. The learned assessing authority is directed to

consider and verify all the relevant details regarding the

assessee's carry forward losses in these facts and circumstances.

3.

Learned Counsel does not want to press the assessee's

claim of disallowance of Rs.6,56,193/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account

of deposit of ESI/PF beyond the "due" date. Rejected accordingly.

4.

The assessee's appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 2026.

Sd/-

(SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 28th January, 2026.

f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ

Copy forwarded to:

1.

Appellant

- 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →