Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.Shriram
ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 23/12/2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) is justified in enhancing the assessee’s loss of Rs.10,90,60,313/- to Rs.18,16,61,114/- merely on the basis of a revised computation of income filed during assessment proceedings.
2. ACIT vs. The Khamgaon Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. “Dhanawardhini” 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) was justified in so holding though the assessee had not filed a revised return of income claiming enhanced loss.
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the learned CIT(Appeals) is not perverse is as much as the enhanced loss has been accepted without any examination whether the deductions claimed were allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act and were arithmetically correct, especially when such examination and verification had not been made at the assessment stage also. 4. Any other ground that may be raised with the permission of the Hon’ble ITAT.”
The facts of the case are that, the assessee is a multistate scheduled bank as per the RBI Act, 1947. The assessee continued to carry on the business of banking as in the earlier years. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 27.09.2010 declaring total loss of Rs.10,90,60,313/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee, in response to the same, the representative of the Assessee has participated in the Assessment proceedings.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the revised computation of income claiming a total loss of Rs.18,16,61,114/- in place of original returned loss of Rs.10,90,60,313/-, the assessee has also claimed carry forward loss.
3. ACIT vs. The Khamgaon Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. “Dhanawardhini” 5. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) opined that, if assessee wants to carry forward any loss to the subsequent years, he must claim such loss in the original return filed within the due date as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has not admitted the Assessee’s claim to revise the returned of income beyond 31/03/2012. Accordingly, the assessment order came to be passed on 20/03/2013, wherein the total loss as per the original return of income filed by the assesse of Rs.10,90,60,313/- has been accepted.
Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 23/03/2013, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nagpur. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that, the AO is not justified in rejecting the loss of Rs.18,16,61,114/- claimed in the revised computation filed by the Assessee. Accordingly, allowed the appeal on 23/12/2016, which is the order impugned in the present Appeal filed by the Department.
The Ld. DR has submitted that, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is cryptic, non speaking and perverse. The Ld. CIT(A) has not even discussed or gave findings as to whether the deduction claimed by the Assessee were allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act or not and even not dealt with the contention of the assessee that, there were certain arithmetical mistakes while mentioning the figures in the original return and the same has been corrected in revised computation, therefore vehemently, contended that the matter has to be remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for proper verification and adjudication of the issue.
4. ACIT vs. The Khamgaon Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. “Dhanawardhini” 8. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, while justifying the order of the Ld. CIT(A) contended that, no such verification or examination is required since the deduction claimed were allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, there were certain typographical and arithmetical error in the original return, which were corrected in the revised computation dated 15/10/2012, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in accepting revised computation and in assessing the loss of Rs.18,16,61,114/-.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on records. From perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is found that the Ld. CIT(A) without discussing as to whether the assessee is entitled for the deduction claimed are allowable or not under the provisions of the Act, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also not even discussed regarding the claim of the assessee that, there were certain arithmetical/typographical errors which have been claimed to be corrected in the revised computation.
In our opinion, if the matter is remanded to the file of CIT (A) with a direction to pass speaking order on the Assessee’s entitlement under law for the deduction on the loss claimed in the revised computation and also decide whether there is an actual arithmetical error committed by the Assessee in the original return, which has been corrected in the revised computation or not, the substantial justice will be rendered.
Accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of CIT (A) to decide the Appeal afresh, in terms of the discussion made above. It is needless to state that
ACIT vs. The Khamgaon Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. “Dhanawardhini” the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard. The Department’s Grounds of Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
12. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 2nd Day of June, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 02.06.2022 PK/Sps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File True Copy By Order