M/S LONGVIEW TEA CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2181/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 October 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not act upon the rectification petitions filed by the assessee regarding the denial of set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the computation of book profits for AY 2012-13.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses in its income tax returns for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. The CPC processed the returns under Section 143(1) and allowed business loss set off but denied unabsorbed depreciation set off without reason.

What were the issues?

Whether the CPC was justified in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses while processing returns under Section 143(1) without assigning reasons. Whether the AO failed to act on rectification petitions filed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]

Hearing: 01.10.2018Pronounced: 05.10.2018

ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1.These two appeals of the assessee arise out of the separate orders passed the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short the Ld. CIT(A)] in appeal nos. 1157 &1877/CIT(A)-2/14-15 dated 01.07.2016 for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively against the intimation u/s 143(1) passed by CPC Bangalore on 23.03.2013 and 12.11.2014 for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively.

2.

The common issue involved in both these appeal is with regard to non-granting of set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss with the income of the assessee while framing intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC.

3.

The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward by it amounting to Rs.

2 M/s Longview Tea Co. Ltd. A.Yrs. 2012-13 & 2013-14 40,36,369/- which was also duly mentioned in schedule BFLA of the Income Tax Returns. The assessee also claimed set off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 48,23,371/- in the return. The CPC Bangalore while processing the return u/s 143(1), allowed adjustment of brought forward business loss amounting to Rs. 48,23,371/- but denied adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 40,36,369/- without assigning any reason.

4.

Similarly in the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee company had claimed set off of brought forward loss of Rs. 22,03,636/- pertaining to assessment year 2005-06 in the return of income. However while processing the return u/s 143(1) set off of the same was not allowed by the CPC, Bangalore.

5.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for both the years which were decided against the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeals before us for both the years.

6.

We have heard rival submissions. We find from the materials available on record that the assessee had also preferred a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act before the ld. AO seeking for the set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss and unabsorbed business loss for the relevant assessment years. The assessee has filed 154 petition on several dates i.e. 21.11.2014, 13.01.2015, 15.04.2016 and 26.04.2018. None of the petitions filed by the assessee were acted upon by the ld. AO.

7.

With regard to other grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, the assessee disclosed book profits of Rs. 70,03,340/- and the same was computed by the CPC, Bangalore at Rs. 85,44,650/- without assigning any reason. The assessee has also preferred 154 petition before the ld. AO for the same as the rectification rights to transfer to the jurisdictional Assessing 2

3 M/s Longview Tea Co. Ltd. A.Yrs. 2012-13 & 2013-14 officer on 05.02.2016 as is evident from the e-filing website of Income tax Department. This was also not acted upon by the ld. AO.

8.

In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand the issues raised in these two appeals before us to the file of the ld. AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised in these two appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 05.10.2018

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →