9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccompanied by the Auditor's Report. Though the respondent would state that notice under Section 139(9) was issued on 15.06.1994 and 17.10.1995 calling upon the petitioner to rectify the defect, the petitioner would state that no such notice was received by them. 3.Though these writ petitions are pending from 2006, no counter affidavit has been filed denying the said averment. For the first time, the petitioner came to know that his return was rejected as being defective only when the order of assessment dated 23.01.2002 for the assessment year 1996-1997 was passed wherein there is a reference that the returns filed for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 were treated as defective and as the assessee has not rectified the mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year 1996-1997 on 23.01.2002. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the respondent praying for an opportunity as well as a relief by way of carry forward benefit. The petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Dharma Reddy 73 ITR 751, CIT V. Jaipuria China Clay Mines Limited, 59 ITR 555(SC) and CIT V. Veeramani Industries Private Limited, 216 ITR 607 (SC). In support of the contention that the relevant year for consideration of carry forward of loss and depreciation and set off of the same is the year in which losses are to be set off and not in any earlier years. Thus, three orders were passed by the respondent. In so far as the revision p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 1996-1997 which was an order giving effect to the order of the CIT(Appeals) in ITA.No.375/1999-00 dated 17.02.2000. The petitioner's case is that on being informed that the return filed for 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 were not accompanied by Audit Reports, they had filed their Audit Reports on 31.10.1995 well before the end of the assessment year i.e. 31.03.1996. However, the respondent in the impugned order dated 31.03.2005 shifts the burden on the petitioner. If according to the petitioner, they had filed the Audit Report and the same is received by the Assessing Officer across his table and invariably acknowledgments are not given, then, the easiest procedure would be to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. If that ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
