Akarsh Residence Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

This case involves appeals by Akarsh Residence Pvt. Ltd. against orders from the CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The core issues revolve around the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent confirmation of the assessment order by the CIT(A). The assessee also contested the denial of set-off for brought-forward losses.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos.136 and 137 /Bang/2020
Assessment years : 2014-15 and 2015-16

M/s. Akarsh Residence Pvt. Ltd.,
No.10, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
PAN : AAICA 0191 P
APPELLANT 

Vs.

DCIT,
Circle – 2 [1][1],
Bengaluru.
RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, C. A.
Revenue by : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Date of hearing : 25.08.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2020

O R D E R

Per A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

Both these appeals are filed by the assessee and these are directedagainst two separate orders of learned CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, both dated 30.12.2019, for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.
 
2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.136/Bang/2018

1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred indismissing the appeal and hereby confirming the order passedby Assessing Officer. The order passed by learned assessingofficer 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 andwithout properly complying with the law. The Assessment Orderbeing bad in law and is to be quashed.

3. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer had not properlyassumed the proper jurisdiction u/s. 153C of I.T. Act. 1961. In the absence of the assumption of proper jurisdiction propersatisfaction note, the assessment order passed by AssessingOfficer being bad in law and void-ab-inito required to bequashed.

4. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer of not 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.

To know more in details find the attachment file