TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urned in those years. Once the losses have bee claimed the same were required to be allowed as set off after verification that such losses were determined losses - Decided in favor of assessee. AO and appellate authority passed orders while performing their duty, therefore, this is not a fit case for levy of cost. - IT Appeal No. 332 (Chd.) of 2012 - - - Dated:- 23-5-2012 - H.L. KARWA, T.R. SOOD, JJ. ORDER T.R. Sood, Accountant Member In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1 As per the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the provisions of law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not amending the order of the Assessing Officer by adjusting the brought forward losses claimed in the return and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come and the rejection of set off of losses was not justified. 4. The ld. CIT(A) rejected this application by stating that the scope of rectification proceedings was limited and it was also observed that set off of losses cannot be a matter of rectification and in this regard reliance was placed on CIT v. Chaltan Vibhag Udyog Khand Sahakari Mandli Ltd. , 282 ITR 385. It was also observed that after 1.6.1999 no adjustment to the total income declared by the assessee, can be made. Since the intimation was issued to the assessee after 1.6.1999, the rectification was not possible. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee had file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the assessee had never claimed loss and this loss should be allowed to be set off as well as loss which is not absorbed during the year should be allowed to be carry forward. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions carefully and find force in the submissions of the ld. counsel of the assessee. The copy of return as well as the processing done by the CPC clearly shows that the assessee had claimed set off of losses amounting to Rs. 9,53,75,262/- out of total carry forwarded losses of Rs. 12,43,94,853/-. Further the assessee had also filed the copy of return for earlier years which shows that the losses were returned in those years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 9,53,75,262/- has been allowed to be set off. However, there is no mention of carry forward of losses. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the figures of losses determined already on record and allow the set off as well as carry forward of such losses. 8. Ground No. 3 - The ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has been unnecessarily put to hardship by way of raising a demand in excess of Rs. 3.00 crore and unnecessary litigation by the Department. Therefore, suitable cost should be imposed on the revenue. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer was doing his duty while adjudicating the matter and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
