SUDHAKAR REDDY NALLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order for AY 2016-17 was quashed, there was no assessable income for that year. Consequently, the carried forward losses from AY 2016-17 should be considered for AY 2017-18.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in film production, declared nil income for AY 2017-18 after setting off carried forward losses. A search operation led to proceedings under Section 153C. The Assessing Officer and PCIT(A) disallowed the set off of losses, citing assessed income in AY 2016-17.
What were the issues?
Whether carried forward losses can be disallowed for set off when the assessment order for the preceding year, which formed the basis for disallowance, has been quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ld.AR रधजस्व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 15/07/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 06/08/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 12/02/2024 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. PCIT(A)”)-11, Hyderabad, in the case of Sudhakar Reddy Nalla (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal.
The assessee is engaged in the business of film production and film distribution. For the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, the assessee filed his return of income on 14.07.2017, declaring “Nil” income after set off of 2 I.T.A.No.233/Hyd/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Sudhakar Reddy Nalla, Hyderabad carried forward losses to the tune of Rs.2,75,93,255/-. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) conducted on 28.01.2021, covering the case of the assessee and pursuant thereto, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 to 2021-22 were initiated.
In so far as the A.Y.2017-18 is concerned, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment vide order dated 27.03.2023 by disallowing set off of carried forward losses on the ground that while passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C for the A.Y.2016-17, there was an assessed income and therefore no loss could be allowed to be carried forward.
In appeal, the Ld.PCIT(A) also concurred with the said opinion of the Assessing Officer and held that in as much as there was assessed income for the A.Y.2016-17 vide order dated 30.03.2023 passed u/s 153C of the Act, no loss was available to the assessee to be carried forward. On that premise, the Ld.PCIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
Assessee, therefore, filed this appeal and contended that the order dated 30.03.2023 passed u/s 153C of the Act for the A.Y.2016-17 was quashed by the Ld.CIT(A) in appeal against such order. He submitted a copy of the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y.2016-17, wherein, the Ld.CIT(A) clearly noted that in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, issuance of notice u/s 153C for the A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016- 17 was bad in law and on that ground, such assessment was liable to be quashed. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly quashed the assessment for the A.Y.2016-17. Copy of that order forms part of the record.
Though the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the relief to be granted to the assessee, there is no contradiction of the fact that the assessment for the A.Y.2016-17 was quashed by the first appellate authorities and therefore, there was no assessable income for such year.
3 I.T.A.No.233/Hyd/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Sudhakar Reddy Nalla, Hyderabad
On a careful consideration of these facts, we find that since the assessment order for the A.Y.2016-17 is no longer in existence, there cannot be any assessable income for such year and according to the Ld.AR, the losses available for the A.Y.2016-17 now continue to be available for the A.Y.2017-18 also. We, therefore, considering the said submission in the light of the copy of the order of the fist appellate authority for the A.Y.2016- 17 direct the Assessing Officer to consider the available carried forward losses for the A.Y.2017-18 and if so to delete the disallowance of set off of carried forward losses. Grounds are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of August, 2024.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026