CBDT couldn’t condone delay to carry forward loss if same wasn’t even claimed in original ITR: HC
Gaurangbhai Chimanbhai Kapadiya v. Union of India – [2024] 161 taxmann.com 304 (Gujarat)
Assessee filed his return of income for the year 2015-16 belatedly under Section 139(4) by declaring a total income of Rs. 3,30,398. The assessee’s account was maintained by a part-time unqualified accountant, and though the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,52,12,010 on account of derivative transactions, the same was not claimed while filing the return of income.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment, and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, and an addition of Rs. 12,708 was made. Assessee filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,09,140. He had earned a profit of Rs. 80,18,157 for Assessment Year 2016-17 on account of derivative transactions and accordingly adjusted the unabsorbed loss amounting to Rs. 2,52,12,010 incurred by him in the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The Assessing Officer (AO) did not allow the carry forward of loss of Assessment Year 2015-16 as the same was not claimed in the return of income and added an amount of Rs. 80,97,138 to the income of the assessee, raising a demand on the said income.
Assessee applied to the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) to condone the delay in claiming the loss he incurred on account of the derivative transactions. The CBDT rejected the application for the delay in filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The matter reached before the Gujarat High Court.
The Gujarat High Court held that Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act provides for filing a return of income to enable the assessee to carry forward if the return is filed within time as per Section 139(1). If the assessee made a claim belatedly, the delay in making such claim can be condoned by the AO for the purpose of permitting the assessee to claim the loss so as to carry forward in the next year for set off. Therefore, there was no question to condone the assessee’s delay to carry forward such loss.
Moreover, the assessee also failed to show any hardships, much less any genuine hardship, when filing the return of income for the relevant Assessment Year only. Thus, no interference was called for in the impugned order passed by the AO.