Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee concluded that the return filed by the assessee for AY 2008-09 is without digital signature and the assessee filed unaudited accounts. Thus, the return was not a valid return and the revised return filed by the assessee was filed beyond the time allowed by section 139(1). For unabsorbed depriciation of Rs. 25,41,927/-, the ld CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the set off while computing taxable income. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal by raising the grounds of appeal as referred above.

ITA No. 3637 Mum 2017-The Parthenon Group India LLC

6. We have heard the submissions of the ld. authorised representatives (AR) for the assessee and the learned departmental representative (ld. DR) for the revenue and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee filed its return of income for the first time in AY 2008-09 and claimed carry forward of unabsorbed loss of Rs. 1,41,30,417/- and depriciation of Rs. 5,39,792/- against the income of subsequent year. The return was not selected for scrutiny nor was defect notice issued to the assessee. For AY 2009-10 the assessee filed return of income, the assessee was eligible to carry forward loss of Rs. 8,26,75,990/- and unabsorbed depriciation of Rs. 25,41,927/- for set of income of subsequent year. The assessing officer assessing officer confirmed the loss and depriciation in the assessment order for AY 2009-10 passed under section 143(3) dated 08.12.2011. The AO while determining the loss has not considered the loss of AY 2008-09. The assessee filed application under section 154 for rectification of the assessment order for AY 2009- 10, which has not been decided by the AO. Though, the AO has quantified the unabsorbed depriciation for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 in assessment order dated 08.12.2011 and 26.03.2013 respectively, yet the AO has not considered the same in the year under consideration. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by taking view that for AY 2008- 09 the return filed by the assessee contained false verification as well as ITA No. 3637 Mum 2017-The Parthenon Group India LLC the assessee filed unaudited accounts. Thus, the return was not a valid return and the revised return filed by the assessee was filed beyond the time allowed by section 139(1). The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts as explained by the assessee and concluded that the return filed for AY 2008-08 was not a valid return as it was filed without a digital signature and mentioned that the assessee was not require to obtain audit report. The assessee was not liable for audit as the turnover of the assessee was less than the prescribed limit of Rs.40 lakhs.