TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that the Respondent-Assessee had in the subsequent assessment year not claimed carry forward loss is evidence of the fact that there was no intent to furnish inaccurate particulars of income or conceal income. The expenditure had been claimed as it had set up its business though not commenced during the subject Assessment years. This was a claim which was disallowed not on the basis that it had not set up its business. In any case, both CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal had concurrently reached a finding of fact that there was no intent on the part of the Respondent Assessee to evade tax. This finding is not shown to the arbitrary - Decided in favour of assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 2085 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - M. S. San ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same to the income of the Respondent Assessee. Besides, the Assessing Officer disallowed the carry forward loss as claimed in the return of income as it was filed beyond the due date, thereafter disallowed under Section 80 of the Act. However, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. (b) In the penalty proceedings, the Respondent-Assessee contended that expenditure had been claimed for the purpose of business which had been set up even though the business had not commenced. Further, it had shown a net loss of ₹ 3.92 Crores which in present format of e-return would automatically reflect also as carry forward loss. In any view of the matter, the Respondent-Assessee pointed out that it had no intent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of income filed for the subsequent Assessment Years 2009-2010 2010-2011, no such carry forward loss has in fact been claimed by the Respondent-Asessee. Thirdly, the electronic form prescribed by the Department was such that if in the return of income, a loss is entered then the figure of carry forward loss appears without any control and/or manipulation on the part of the Assessee. In the above facts, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the Respondent-Assessee's Appeal and deleted the penalty. (d) On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The impugned order holds that the carry forward loss which was shown in the return filed for the subject assessment year was automatically ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent-Assessee had in the subsequent assessment year not claimed carry forward loss is evidence of the fact that there was no intent to furnish inaccurate particulars of income or conceal income. The expenditure had been claimed as it had set up its business though not commenced during the subject Assessment years. This was a claim which was disallowed not on the basis that it had not set up its business. (f) In any case, both CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal had concurrently reached a finding of fact that there was no intent on the part of the Respondent Assessee to evade tax. This finding is not shown to the arbitrary. Therefore, Question (1) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
