9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2022 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts on record indicates that the petitioner had originally filed a return of income on 12.04.2017, declaring a Nil income in the return. The return was also processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 09.05.2017. It appears that the petitioner had failed to declare the correct taxable income in the return that was filed on 12.04.2017 and therefore a notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to the same, the petitioner has filed a return of income dated 09.07.2021, which was neither signed nor e-verified. Therefore, the same was not taken up for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been stated that in response to the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, copy of reasons recorded for issuance of Notice under Section 148 was not supplied to the petitioner, as no return was filed with e-verification, as is required under the provisions of the Act. 6. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.03.2022, that were made by the petitioner had claimed imaginary loss from sale of derivatives. It is further submitted that in the return that was filed by the petitioner on 12.04.2017, the petitioner had wrongly given the details of short term capital gain and had admitted to loss of Rs. 2,79,27,839/-. However, by a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made in the Return cannot be allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Return that was filed by the petitioner on 09.07.2021 even though it was not e-verified, was admittedly substituted by another return on 11.03.2022. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not file the return to claim set off/deduction for the alleged/purported loss or loss from the sale of derivatives as has been observed in the impugned order. 12. To balance the interest of both the petitioner and the Income Tax Department, the impugned order can be set aside and the case can be remitted back to the respondents to re-examine whether the claim of the petitioner on the alleged loss incurred from the sale of derivatives can be allowed or not, as invocation of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
