TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings u/s 147 of the Act for the reason that assessee has not filed its return of income and that reason alone cannot be proper to initiate proceedings u/s 147 by relying upon the decision in the case of General Electoral Trust vrs. ITO [ 2016 (8) TMI 959 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]. As observed in the case of trust that income of the assessee is not determinable whether it has taxable income and as per the provision of section 139 assessee is obligated to file only it has taxable income and AO can collect the information u/s 133(6) - we notice that in the present case, the facts are different and as far as trust is concerned, it is obligated to file return of income only when it has taxable income, whereas in the case of a company, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Thane in short referred as Ld. CIT(A) , Mumbai, dated 28.09.2016 for Assessment Year (in short AY) 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is a public sector corporation wholly owned by Govt. of Maharashtra. It was noticed by the AO that assessee had not filed its return of income for AY 2012-13, accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 08.08.13 asking the assessee to file its return of income. In response, assessee submitted that its final account has been audited and awaiting for approval of Board of Directors as the Board itself has not been constituted and assessee requested for time to file its return of income. Further, AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.10.13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and sustained the findings of AO with regard to carry forward of business loss to the extent of ₹ 1.58 crores. With regard to initiation of penalty, assessee has not pressed this ground since penalty is not emanating from the assessment order passed by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the submission of the appellant and upholding the decision of Ld. AO by no allowing carry forward of business loss of ₹ 1,58,32,539/- as declared by the appellant. 2. The Appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Trust vrs. ITO (2016) 289 CTR Bom 284. 9. On merit, Ld. AR submitted that assessee is a public sector company owned by the Govt. of Maharashtra and submitted that the delay in filing the return of income is beyond the control of the assessee due to non-appointment of board of directors by the Govt. of Maharashtra, therefore, AO is not proper in denying the business loss declared by the assessee. 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR brought to our notice the facts of the case and submitted that assessee has filed its return of income belatedly and as per the provision of law, assessee cannot carry forward business loss irrespective of the fact that assessee is a public or private limited company and further, he relied upon the orders pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xable income, whereas in the case of a company, it is obligated to file its return of income whether it has profit earned or not and even on carry forward loss is concerned, assessee has to file its loss return within the limitation period in order to avail the benefit of carry forward loss. Therefore, the case relied upon by Ld. AR is distinguishable and in our considered view, the proceedings initiated by AO u/s 147 is proper. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 13. With regard to merit of the case, we notice that there is no dispute that assessee has filed its return of income belatedly and as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, assessee cannot avail the benefit of carry forward without fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
