TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the face of the record, or perversity in dismissing the assessee's appeal and upholding the concurrent view - it is the claim and which was based on the carry forward of the past losses, it is held to have been given up – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 432 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. Nishit Gandhi with Samir G. Dalal For the Respondent : Mr. N. C. Mohanty ORDER P. C. 1. This is an assessee's appeal. The assessment year is 2003-04. The Tribunal confirmed the concurrent findings which have been rendered by both the Assessing Officer as also the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied forward business losses, aggregating to ₹ 75,91,540/-. For the year under consideration namely 2003-04, the return of income was filed on 28th November, 2003. The income of ₹ 11,66,075/- was adjusted against the brought forward loss of earlier years amounting to ₹ 75,89,440/- and the balance loss of ₹ 64,23,365/- was carried forward. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned loss as claimed by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant's case for assessment year 2002-03 was reopened under provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 31st March, 2009. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, a return of income was filed by the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n nor the revised return contained any carried forward of losses as claimed by the assessee. Then, the matter was carried before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and while considering the rival contentions, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. We found that when the case was reopened looking into certain discrepancy the action of the Assessing Officer is correct because the appellant filed revised return of assessment year 2003-04 wherein the losses of earlier years were not claimed. The revised return was filed and when the Assessing Officer concluded that the losses were not carry forward in the revised return as well, that the finding of such a claim having been given up, has been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
