TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 14A. Similarly, the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2011-12 is available and as per the same, the assessee claimed loss in this year but the AO made addition u/s 14A of the Act and determined the net loss for that year and hence, the quantum of loss for the present year year is also dependent upon the decision of CIT(A) in first appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 which is still pending before learned CIT(A). Quantum of carry forward of loss in the present year is also depending upon the final decision of CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2012-13 which is still pending before CIT(A). Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2012-14 and as per the same, the assessee declared a positive income which is accepted by the AO as no addition was made in this year but as against the claim of the assessee for higher amount of brought forward losses for earlier three years as noted above, the AO set off the losses determined by him as carry forward in Assessment Year 2012-13 and determined the net taxable income for this year and therefore, the final amount of carry forward of losses for the present year is also depending upon the decision of CIT(A) in the first appeal for this year and earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot allowing the setoff of Brought forward losses. The appellant is entitled to set off of brought forward losses and the same is to be allowed to appellant. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B 234C. The interest levied being erroneous is to be deleted. 6. In view of the above and on the grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer be quashed or at least the appellant be held entitled to set off of brought forward losses and the interest levied is also to be deleted. ITA No.137/Bang/2018 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal and hereby confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order passed by learned assessing officer being bad in law and void-ab-inito was required to be quashed instead of being confirmed. . 2. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have quashed the order, as the order passed by Assessing Officer was without properly assuming the jurisdiction and without properly complying with the law. The Assessment Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee as per ground No.3 before the Tribunal in both years and this issue is regarding assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein called the Act ). Regarding this issue, she submitted that paras 12 to 14 of the order of learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15 are relevant and in Assessment Year 2015-16, the decision of learned CIT(A) is also on the same line. She pointed out that in these paras, it is noted by learned CIT(A) that search was carried out in the premises of M/s. Adarsh Developers and in search, certain incriminating documents were found and seized and these documents had a bearing on the income of this assessee and therefore, the AO of the searched person M/s. Adarsh Developers have recorded satisfaction and after recording satisfaction, forwarded seized material to the AO of the assessee and thereafter only, the AO of the present assessee has issued notice under section 153C of I T Act on 19.09.2017 and thereafter, further notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. It was her submission that this is the claim of the assessee that satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirements were not complied with and the principles of law were not applied and hence, on this issue, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue in both the years and accordingly, ground No.3 is rejected in both years. 7. Regarding the issue on merit in Assessment Year 2014-15, we find that this is the claim of the assessee that the AO was not justified in not allowing the set off of brought forward losses. In this regard, we find that the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2010-11 is available on pages 70 to 89 of the Paper Book and as per the same, the assessee has claimed loss of ₹ 3,79,94,328/- but he AO made addition of ₹ 2,48,41,884/- and hence, it is seen that the quantum of loss for the present year is dependent upon the decision of CIT(A) in the first appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 in which the assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 2,48,41,884/- made by the AO under section 14A of the Act. Similarly, the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2011-12 is available on pages 91 to 109 of the Paper Book and as per the same, the assessee claimed loss of ₹ 18,60,44,134/- in this year but the AO made addition of ₹ 16,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
