TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 115BBE of the Act, the Assessing Officer should have calculated the tax @ 30% of the declared income is concerned, we find that the assessee being a company has already paid the tax @ 30%. Order of the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, therefore, the PCIT has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the action of the Ld. PCIT in setting aside the assessment order cannot be held to be justified. The impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is, therefore, quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 668/CHD/2019 And ITA No. 669/CHD/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2020 - Shri N.K. Saini, Vice President And Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri G. S Phani Kishore, CIT DR ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessees, who are sister concerns, against the separate orders dated 07.03.2019 of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula [hereinafter referred to as PCIT ] agitating the action of the Ld. PCIT in passing the impugned orders u/s 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the I.T. Act, 1961. He, therefore, held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. PCIT, therefore, invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and after giving opportunity to the assessee to explain the above, held the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He, accordingly set aside the same with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh after considering the issue as discussed by him in the impugned order. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the PCIT, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has invited our attention to the written submissions filed before the Ld. PCIT, wherein, the assessee has submitted that against the current year business income / loss, assessee had claimed current year depreciation amounting to ₹ 7,39,275/-. That after claim of the aforesaid depreciation, net resultant income of the assessee was at a loss of ₹ 27,433/-. That as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, as applicable for the assessment year under considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017-18 that set off of loss will not be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing his income. Therefore, it is clear that w.e.f A.Y. 2017-18, any type of loss will not be allowed as deduction and set off against the income and the amendment is not retrospective in nature. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the Ld. PCIT and has submitted that the Assessing Officer has not discussed about the special provisions of section 115BBE in the assessment order and that the Ld. PCIT has rightly noted that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties and have gone through the record. A perusal of the copy of the Income Tax Acknowledgment along with computation of profit loss account of the assessee reveal that after claiming depreciation of ₹ 11,88,982/-, assessee had claimed the loss of ₹ 4,16,944/-. The assessee thereafter added the amount of ₹ 95 lacs surrendered income and after setting off of the loss of ₹ 4,16,944/-, the assessee declared ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 2017-18 onwards, conflicting views have been taken by the Assessing Officers in assessments for years prior to assessment year 2017-18. The matter has been referred to the Board so that a consistent approach is adopted by the Assessing Officers while applying provision of section 115BBE in assessments for period prior to the assessment year 2017-18. 3. The Board has examined the matter. The Circular No. 3/2017 of the Board dated 20th January, 2017 which contains Explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2016, at para 46.2, regarding amendment made in section 115BBE(2) of the Act mentions that currently there is uncertainty on the issue of set-off of losses against income referred to in section 115BBE. It also further mentions that the pre-amended provision of section 115BBE of the Act did not convey the intention that losses shall not be allowed to be set-off against income referred to in section 115BBE of the Act and hence, the amendment was made vide the Finance Act, 2016. 4. Thus keeping the legislative intent behind amendment in section 115BBE(2) vide the Finance Act, 2016 to remove any ambiguity of interpretation, the Board is of the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
