TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. In the case of Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders [ 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that an assessee is entitled to raise before appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made in return filed by it. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Ltd.[ 2021 (3) TMI 694 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that assessee's fresh claim before appellate authority is entertainable even when same is not claimed in original return of income nor assessee has filed revised return of income to make such claim. The Bombay High Court in the case of B. G. Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd.[ 2017 (3) TMI 879 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that an assessee is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not granting set off of brought forward business loss of Rs.22,08,026/- of Asst. Year 2016-17. The claim was put up vide letter dt.14.11.2019 before Ld ACIT, Circle - 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. This claim was referred in submission to CIT(A) in letter dt 29-9-2021. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in in dismissing appellant's ground of charging interest u/s.234A of I.T. Act for Rs.1,076/-. 4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in in dismissing appellant's ground of charging interest u/s.234B of I.T. Act for Rs.8,877/-. 5. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s loss of Rs. 22, 08,026/- for assessment year 2016-17 were not set-off against the income of assessment year 2017-18. In fact, the assessment order did not at all make any mention of the aforesaid submission / claim of set-off filed / made by the assessee requesting for set-off of business losses of assessment year 2016-17 against the income of assessment year 2017-18. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed assessee s appeal with the following observations: Findings and Decision: 4. Perusal of order u/s. 143(3) dated 04.1.2.2019 for AY.2017-18 shows that the assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs.44,230/- towards interest on income tax refund u/s.244A received by the appellant during the year which was not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed to have requested before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. No evidence thereof also has been filed by the appellant. However, the appellant submits that as per intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 07.12.2016 for AY.2016-17, it is allowed to carry forward current year's loss of Rs.22,08,026/- and that a rectification application u/s. 154 filed before the AO on 13.01.2020 is pending. However, these are matters outside the pari materia of the impugned assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 04.12.2019 passed by the AO for AY.2017-18. The current status of such loss determined if any for AY.2016-17 is also an issue of fact which requires verification with reference to the records of the AO vis a vis assessment orders passed if a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th a view to find out new sources of income and the power of enhancement under s. 31(3) of the Act is restricted to the sources of income which have been the subject-matter of consideration by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of taxability. In this context consideration does not mean incidental or collateral examination of any matter by the Income-tax Officer in the process of assessment. There must be something in the assessment order to show that the Income-tax Officer applied his mind to the particular subject-matter or the particular source of income with a view to its taxability or to its non-taxability and not to any incidental connection. In the present case it is manifest that the Incometax Officer has not conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had specifically requested the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to allow set-off of brought forward losses of assessment year 2016-17 against the income for the impugned assessment year. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) completely ignored the assessee s request and did not allow such set-off, which is a legally tenable claim of the assessee. In response, the Ld. DR has relied upon the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In our considered view, even though the assessing officer may not be permitted to allow the assessee s legitimate claim for set-off of brought forward business losses, in the event the assessee does not claim the same in the return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
