DCIT v. Anagha Vijay Deshmukh – [2023]
Non-resident assessee claimed to carry forward losses under the heading “Capital Gains” and declared income from rent and interest in its income tax return. Moreover, the assessee increased the loss carry forward claim by submitting an updated return. The return was processed in accordance with section 143(1), and the carry forward of loss claim was rejected on the grounds that the assessee had failed to provide the Central Processing Center the acknowledgement of the original return, rendering the original return invalid (CPC).
The dissatisfied assessee chose to appeal to the CIT(A), but it was unsuccessful. The Pune Tribunal was then consulted on the issue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted its first return substantially before the deadline, and that the claim of carry forward of losses was only rejected on the grounds that the assessee’s initial return was invalid since it had not been acknowledged to CPC.
Another procedural requirement associated with the obligation to provide the return electronically is to print off the electronically filed return and transmit it to the CPC as confirmation that the return has been sent electronically.
This second obligation, which is to send a filed return acknowledgement to the CPC, is simply advisory; failure to comply with it on time or at all cannot invalidate the filing of a return that would otherwise be legal.
Since providing the acknowledgment is merely a procedural obligation and not a law requirement, it is impossible to compare failing to provide it with not submitting the return at all.
Moreover, the assessee submitted a request to the board arguing that the delay be excused for failure to provide acknowledgement in the relevant period. As a result, the assessee’s initial return cannot be deemed invalid.
