M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 509/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2019-2020
Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I
condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities."
24. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cosme Matias Menezes (P.)
Ltd. v. CIT [379 ITR 31] observed as under: -
"9. Reading the said provisions
