Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

CIT(A) Error in ₹16.89 Cr Capital Loss: ITAT Restores case to AO for Verification

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 2893
Case Name
Businessmatch Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2014-15
Advertisement

Businessmatch Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai addressed an appeal filed by Businessmatch Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning the Assessment Year 2014-15. The core issue of the appeal was the CIT(A)’s incorrect recording of the long-term capital loss claimed by the assessee. In its return of income, the assessee had declared a long-term capital loss of INR 16,89,86,412 for carry forward. However, the CIT(A), while acknowledging the assessee’s appeal on this point and directing the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification, mistakenly noted the loss as INR 16,89,412 in the order. Subsequently, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s rectification application, citing that the ground of appeal itself mentioned the incorrect lower amount.

The assessee’s representative argued before the ITAT that the initial return of income clearly stated the long-term capital loss as INR 16,89,86,412, referencing the computation of total income submitted as evidence. The Departmental Representative (DR) conceded that the matter required verification by the AO. Considering the submissions and the discrepancy in the recorded amount of loss by the CIT(A), the ITAT found it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The tribunal directed the AO to conduct a fresh adjudication, specifically instructing them to verify the correct amount of long-term capital loss from the records and allow its carry forward as per the applicable tax laws. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes, indicating that the AO would now re-examine the matter.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,985

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.