JAMMU AND KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 199 days wherein, assessee has stated that the aftermath of abrogation of special constitutional status of the erstwhile J & K, resulted huge delay in filing of appeal.

Tersely, we advert the fact of the case. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s 139 on dated 01.12.2006 for A.Y.2006-07. Later on, revised return was filed on 17.03.2008 in which the appellant had claimed expenses/loss on account 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 of brick and tile factory, the assessment was completed by the ld. AO without taking in cognizance of the revised return &had not allowed the loss of the said business amount of Rs.63,72,588/-. The appellant had filed application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO which was duly rejected by the Authority. The claim of the assessee was that to accept the loss incurred in the factory amount of Rs.63,72,588/- which was claimed in revised return. During process of rectification u/s 154/250(6) of the Act, the ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the order of rectificationu/s 154/250(6) of ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and did not allow the loss adjustment with the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of assessee to represent his case. The assessee filed a letter and requested to dispose of the matter on the basis of the written submission available in the record. we proceed to dispose the appeal ex-parte qua after hearing the learned DR and on the basis of material available on the record 4 Assessment Year: 2006-07

We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record and also considered the order of both the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR first relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) in page no. 3 which is extracted as below: “Decision- As stated in the impugned order, regarding the expense in respect of brick and tile factory the CIT(A) has given his finding and no relief has been granted to the assessee on this issue. Therefore in the light of the order of the CIT(A), no relief was granted to the assessee on this issue. In the statement of facts filed with form 35 that the appellant filed return of income for AY 2006-07 on 1.12.2006. Later on revised return was filed on 7.3.2008 in which the appellant claimed expenses/loss on account of brick and tile factory. The assessment was completed by the AO without taking into cognizance of the revised return and did not allow the loss of said factory. The appellant had then moved application u/s 154 of the act before the AO which was rejected. However, considering that the expense in respect of brick and tile factory had been considered but the CIT(A), Jammu and he has given a finding in his order of not allowing relief to the assessee on this issue, therefore there is no merit in the application u/s 154 of the act and the same is dismissed.” 5 Assessment Year: 2006-07

The assessee had filed a return in original on dated 01.12.2006. The next revised return was on 17.03.2008. The assessment was completed on basis of the original return. The ld. AO had not taken cognizance of the revised return. The assessee did not claim the loss in the original return filed before the revenue. So, the ld. AO is only bound to allow the claim which is claimed in the original return.