Loss set-off against the income from other heads

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeals filed by M/s. Rajdeep Marketing P. Ltd. for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee had filed revised returns to claim a deduction under section 80GGB of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision followed arguments that transactions were routed through banking channels and that the tax authorities could have obtained further information from the banks.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“D” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA no.7969/Mum./2019
(Assessment Year : 2010–11)
ITA no.7970/Mum./2019
(Assessment Year : 2009–10)

M/s. Rajdeep Marketing P. Ltd.
107, 1st Floor, Maker Chamber–V
Jamnalal Bajaj Marg
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021
PAN – AACCR5970K

Appellant

vs

Income Tax Officer
Ward–3(3)(1), Mumbai

Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal
Revenue by : Shri Bharat Andhale

Date of Hearing – 16.06.2021

Date of Order – 02.08.2021

O R D E R

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the orders of even date 23rd October 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009–10 and 2010–11.

2. The brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009–10 on 26.09.2009, declaring total income at ₹ 75,910/–. The assessee filed revised return of income on 26.09.2009, declaring total income at Rs.Nil, in order to claim deduction under section 80GGB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short “the Act”). The revised return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act.

3.Further, the learned CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee on submission of PAN, certificate of incorporation, etc., of the parties, whether it is enough to discharge the primary onus of the assessee by relying on various case law including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal and Durga Prasad More. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.In rejoinder, the learned A.R. submitted that the ADIT (Inv.), New Delhi, was entrusted with the task and it was not informed to the assessee and submitted that all these transactions were routed through banking channels only and if the tax authorities were serious, they could have collected the present address from the bank since the assessee has supplied all the information relating to the suppliers like PAN, sales tax information and details.

5.In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. To sum up, both the appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.08.2021

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement.