Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not set off the tax liability of Rs.7,33,534/- computed under the normal provisions with the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit (brought forward) available with the assessee and also did not allow the carry forward of the balance MAT credit u/s 115 JAA of the Act aggregating to Rs.11,38,46,270/- in the order u/s 250 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.07.2022 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee filed a rectification application dated 09.09.2022 requesting the AO to allow the MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act. The AO rejected the above claim of the assessee by passing an order dated 10.11.2022 on the ground that the assessee itself had not claimed any credit of MAT u/s 115 JAA of the Act in the original return for the AY 2016-17 filed on 29.12.2016 and the time for filing a revised return had also elapsed. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the same ground that the assessee had failed to claim the MAT credit in the original ITR for AY 2016-17 and had also not filed revised return to make the claim. The assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 250 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dt. 26/07/2022 wherein he did not allow MAT credit accumulated since AY 2010-11 to AY 2015-16 in the year under consideration failing to appreciate that the said MAT credit was already allowed to be carried forward and set off in AY 2016-17 by the Ld. AO himself vide rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dt. 08.02.2021 for AY 2016-17.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming that MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act shall not be allowed to the appellant since the same was not carried forward in the income tax return for AY 2016-17 failing to appreciate that the said MAT credit was duly generated and accepted in the income tax return for AY 2010-11 to AY 2015-16.
• 3. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming that MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act shall not be allowed to the appellant since the same was not carried forward in the income tax return for AY 2016-17 failing to appreciate that a statutory claim of the assessee cannot be denied just on the ground that the assessee inadvertently forgot to mention the same in income tax return.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shankerlal Rukma Devi Dhoot Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer

  Jodhpur bench

• Rockwell Automation India Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2016-17Partly Allowed

• Sameer Bahadur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-59(3), Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• M/s Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT

  Delhi bench

• DCIT, Circle 28(1) vs. Ashwani Khurana

  A Bench, Delhi benchAY 2016-17Dismissed

• ITA No. 1239/Del/2023

  Delhi bench