Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1075 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - scheme or demerger conceived - under assessment of the income for the year under consideration under the provisions of MAT under section 115 JB of the Act as the AO allowed the deduction by way of adjustment of brought forward losses - assessee has claimed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 although the same (the assessee) came into existence with effect from the assessment year 2008-09 - As per the PCIT the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses pertain to the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 i.e. pre-existence period the assessee, therefore, the same was not to be allowed to be carried forward such unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses under normal as well as under the provisions of MAT under section 115 JB - HELD THAT:- The impugned losses in the year under consideration represents the brought forward amounts from the earlier years. This fact can be verified from the submission of the assessee before the ld. CIT-A in the proceedings of the assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. This fact also remained undisputed by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Answer to question whether the brought forward amount can be enquired in the year under consideration without disturbing the 1st year (the year of origin ) in which such amounts were incorporated in the books of accounts of the assessee certainly, stands in negative. Whether the Revenue can disturb the impugned amount brought forward from the earlier years, but the learned DR cannot make any satisfactory reply? - in the absence of any provisions under the law for disturbing the brought forward balances in the year under consideration in the given facts and circumstances, we hold that the learned PCIT has held the assessment order under consideration as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue under the provisions of section 263 of the Act without having any valid jurisdiction. Accordingly, we hold that the order framed under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable and therefore we quash the same. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|