DAFFODIL TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1644/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 December 2024AY 2011-2012Bench: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the primary grievance of the assessee was the lack of sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed revised returns claiming losses which were not allowed during processing under section 143(1). An order under section 154 was passed rejecting the assessee's petition, and the subsequent appeal to the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(Appeals) and whether the current year's loss should be allowed to be set off.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Daffodil Tower Pvt. Limited,……….…………Appellant 4B, Castle House, 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Circus Avenue, Kolkata-700017 [PAN:AACCD8389C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….…………...Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata Appearances by: Shri Anil Kumar Kochar, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri L.N. Dash, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: December 10, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order: December 27, 2024 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27th June, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company which filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10 on 28.09.2009. In (A.Y. 2011-2012) Daffodil Tower Pvt. Limited the return of income, the assessee company did not claim any loss for the assessment year under consideration. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act determining a refund to the tune of Rs.61,468/-. Subsequently the assessee company revised its return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 20.09.2010 and claimed a loss of Rs.6,82,393/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act without allowing the loss to be carried forward. Thereafter the assessee-company filed return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 claiming brought forward loss to the tune of Rs.6,82,393/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and a loss of Rs.2,89,166/- as current year loss. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act on 04.02.2011. Subsequently the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 claiming a current loss of Rs.9,71,559/-. Current loss to the tune of Rs.9,71,559/- was not allowed while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.01.2012. Thereafter the assessee filed a grievance and in response to the said grievance, order under section 154 was passed by the ld. Assessing officer rejecting the petition of the assessee-company on 27.10.2022.

3.

Being aggrieved, the assesese preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

(A.Y. 2011-2012) Daffodil Tower Pvt. Limited 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following grounds:- (1) That the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, was not justified in dismissing the appeal. (2) That ld. CIT(A) should have provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. (3) That the ld. CIT(A) has misunderstood the matter and thus dismissed the appeal. The matter earlier rejected by the ld. CIT(A) was different, and that this appeal was filed against an order of the ld. ITO and therefore the firs appeal lies with the ld. CIT(A). (4) That the ld. CIT(A) should have appreciated the fact that the appeal was filed before him against the order passed by the ld. ITO and that mere mention of the ld. ITO in his order of an appeal filed earlier on same issue, but against a separate order, cannot equate both the orders.

5. I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the assessee that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pleaded not to uphold the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).

6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).

7.

I have perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assesese. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded one more opportunity of being heard to the assesese regarding set off the current year’s loss. Considering the above facts and circumstances 3 (A.Y. 2011-2012) Daffodil Tower Pvt. Limited of the case and to examine the issue afresh, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 139

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →