9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return of loss/unabsorbed depreciation for the A.Y. 2007- 08 and to allow the same in Assessment year 2008-09 to be set off. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the facts for all the three assessment years, i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 in a holistic manner before giving a finding that unabsorbed depreciation arose for consideration for the A.Y. 2007-08 on which assessee is eligible for relief. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that assessee claimed losses through revised return for the A.Y. 2007-08 to negate the addition made on account of creditors in A.Y. 2006-07 and thus, let to claim unabsorbed depreciation through revised return which is not a genuine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income on 14.2.2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,32,10,300. In the said return, the assessee claimed set off of loss of Assessment year 2007-08 of Rs. 17,25,582. The Assessing Officer observed that the return as filed originally within the time allowed under S.139(1) and it was not a return of loss and the loss of Rs. 17,25,582 of assessment year 2007-08 claimed to be set off in the revised return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 cannot be allowed. The Assessing Officer accordingly adopted the income returned in the original return and proceeded to complete the assessment . 5. On appeal, the CIT(A), after referring to the provisions of S.139 and the decision of Guahati High court in the case of CIT V/s. Sundaram Deka V/s. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l return under S.139(1) and the revised return was filed within one year from the end of the relevant assessment year , i.e. on 14.2.2009, i.e. before 31.3.2009, and by the time of the filing of the revised return, assessment was not completed by the Assessing Officer. As for the claim of the assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 2007- 08 made in the revised return, omission to make such claim in the original return appears to be a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, more so, since no material to the contrary has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Even if the assessee has not filed revised return, Assessing Officer is bound to allow carried forward loss or depreciation as per the record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of the compensation of Rs. 15,32,785 observing that the compensation ordered to be paid by the assessee pertains to two years, viz. financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. However, as noted by the CIT(A) in the impugned order, there were negotiations with the farmers for the amount of compensation to be paid to continue the running of the factory by the assessee, and it was only settled vide Tahsildar's order dated 18.7.2008 and the payment was made on 28.2.2008. This shows that the liability to pay the compensation in question has crystalised only during the period relevant to the year under appeal, even though the liability related to the earlier year as well. In the circumstances, the CIT(A), in our c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
