MAHAMERU TRADING CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO WD 5(2)(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B MUMBAI BEFORE SHIRI B.R. MITTAL JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA A M ITA NO. : 6235/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 394C LAMINGTON CHAMBERS LAMINGTON ROAD MUMBAI-44 001. PAN NO: AAACM 7131 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. C. MAURYA DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.11.2011 ORDER PER R. K. PANDA (AM) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-9 MUMBAI RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 FOR WHICH THE LD. DR HA S NO OBJECTION. THEREFORE THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 2 2.1 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER :- 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE UNABS ORBED BUSINESS LOSS OF `. 71 44 340/- TO BE SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE UNABS ORBED BUSINESS LOSS OF `. 71 44 340/- TO BE SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE LOSS BELONGS TO A.Y. 1999-2000 2001-01 AND 2001-02 AND RETURNS FOR THESE YEARS WERE FILED ON TIME AND ACCE PTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.200 3 DECLARING LOSS OF `. 64 23 365/- WHICH WAS PROCEED U/S.143(1) OF THE I. T. ACT ON 15.03.2004 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED LOSS OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME ON 02.12.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF `. 59 78 265/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HAS NOT SHOWN OR CLAIMED ANY CARRY FOR WARD OF LOSS WHICH WILL MAKE THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR SETTING OFF OF THE LOSSES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF LOSS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS CLAIMING CAR RY FORWARD OF LOSSES IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. HOWEVER CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS REMAINED TO BE CLAIM ED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO HOWEVER ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 3 OBSERVED ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD THAT NEITHER THE ORIGINAL RETURN NOR THE REVISED RETURN FILED CONTAINED ANY CARRY FORWAR D OF LOSSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND RELYING ON T HE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARPRA SAD & CO. PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 99 ITR 118 AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANMOHAN DAS (1996) REPORTED IN 95 ITR 699 THE AO REJECTED T HE CLAIM OF LOSSES ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CURRENT YEARS INCOME AND THE C LAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN REOPENED U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND ACCORDING LY THE SAME CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS FILED ON 31.10.2002 I.E. WITHIN TIME AL LOWED U/S.139(1) CLAIMING THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSSES OF THE PAS T YEARS AS WELL AS THAT OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE ABOVE RETURN WAS ACCEPTED. TH EREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S.148 OF THE IT ACT BY IS SUE OF NOTICE ON 31.03.2009 FOR THE REASON THAT LOSS HAD BEEN CLAIME D DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY INCOME SHOWN DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION WAS D IVIDEND INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPT U/S.10(34) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS COMPLETED ON 18.11.2009 IN WHICH THE AO DISALLOWED EXPENSES CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR U/S.14A RESULTING INTO REDUCING THE LOSS OF `. 4 45 101/- TO NIL. AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CARRIED FORWARD OF LOSSES EXCLUDING LOSS FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 AS THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE AFTER ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I. T. ACT. THE AO HAD NOT ALLOWED THE LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS ON THE ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 4 GROUND THAT THESE LOSSES WERE NOT CLAIMED IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03. THIS PRESUMPTION OF AO IS TOTALLY BASELESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAIN ST WHICH THIS LOSS CAN BE ADJUSTED. THEREFORE THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THIS LOSS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS NO T CORRECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 IN TIME CLAI MING THE LOSSES. ONCE A RETURN IS FILED CLAIMING THE LOSS U/S.139(1) THEN THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED AGAINST FUTURE YEAR PROFIT SUBJECT TO PR OVISION OF SECTION 72 UNLESS THIS LOSS IS BEING DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSM ENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR THE SETTING OFF OF T HE LOSSES THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BUSI NESS LOSSES CANNOT BE CARRIED FORWARDED UNLESS IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED IN PURSUANCE TO A RETURN FILED U/S.139 OF THE IT ACT. IN ORDER TO BE ENTITL ED TO CARRY FORWARD A BUSINESS LOSS THE ASSESSEE MUST SUBMIT A RETURN UN DER SECTION 139(3) OF THE ACT AND HAVE AN ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH HE HAS INCURRED THE LOSS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO NOT IFY TO THE ASSESSEE BY AN ORDER IN WRITING THE AMOUNT OF THE BUSINESS LOSS AS COMPUTED BY HIM WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE CARRIED FORW ARD. WHERE THE BUSINESS LOSS DETERMINED HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED TO THE ASSESS EE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE IT DETERMINED IN A S UBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH THE BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE SET OFF. 5. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH TH E ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE AO IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE RE-OP ENING OF ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS M ADE U/S.143(1) AND THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED LO OKING INTO ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 5 CERTAIN DISCREPANCY IN THE INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U /S.143(1) AND THE SCOPE OF U/S.147 HAVE BECOME VERY WIDE AFTE R THE AMENDMENT I FIND NOTHING WRONG IN RE-OPENING THE A SSESSMENT. THEREFORE THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS REJEC TED. SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES IS CONCERNED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO CORRECT BECAUSE THE A PPELLANT HAS FILED REVISED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WH EREIN THE LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT CLAIMED. ONCE THE REVISED RETURN IS FILED THAT BECOMES THE FINAL RETURN AND A SSESSMENT WAS ALSO COMPLETED ON THAT BASIS BECAUSE NO CLAIM O F LOSSES WAS MADE IN THE REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING LOSSES WHICH WERE NOT CAR RIED FORWARD AND CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED. THE SAME CANNOT BE SET OFF IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE APP ELLANT WAS AGAIN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO JUSIFY HIS CLAIM BUT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR THE LOSSES CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND EXCEPT FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 THOSE LOSSES WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE REVI SED RETURN THOUGH THOSE WERE SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THEREAFTER THE RETURN WAS REVISED IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND NO CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE REVISED R ETURN WHICH IS FINAL RETURN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT . THEREFORE I FIND NOTHING WRONG IN THE LOGIC AND ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING SET OFF OF CARRY FORWARD LOS SES. THIS APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 AND 20 02-03 THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED LOSSES AND ALL THE RETURNS WE RE FILED IN TIME. ALL THE ASSESSMENTS UPTO 2001-02 WERE COMPLETED U/S.143(1) AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS COMP LETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING REG ARDING CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSSES. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF REASONS RECORD ED BY THE AO FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 6 ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE AO IS BECAUSE OF OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSSES T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE INCOME OF `. 11 66 075/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE SAID RETUR N HAS SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED THE LOSS OF THE CURRENT YEAR AND HAS NOT DISALLOWED LOSSES OF THE PAST YEARS. SINCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 THERE IS POSITIVE INCOME THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE SAME AGAINST THE PAST LOSSES. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANMOHAN DAS (1996) REPORTED IN 95 ITR 699 HE SUBMITTED THAT DETERMINING YEAR IS THE YEAR IN WHIC H THE LOSS IS BEING CLAIMED. NOT CLAIMING IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS NOT RELEVANT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES OF `. 71 44 340/- TO BE SET OFF AND CARRIED FORWARD TO TH E SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 8. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED O N THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF T HE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF `. 71 44 340/- AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR AT `. 11 66 075/- AND CARRY FORWARD THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WE FIND FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S .148 OF THE ACT HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME. IN THE SAID RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY CARRY FORWARD OF THE L OSSES. THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 HAS DETERMINED T HE INCOME OF THE ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 7 ASSESSEE AT NIL AND THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY TH E AO REGARDING THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF SUCH LOSSES TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REMAINED SILENT. HOWEVER WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2003 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE DECLARED LOSS OF `. 64 23 365/- AFTER SETTING OFF THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR AG AINST THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION THA T HAS TO BE ANSWERED IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE SET OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YE AR WHEN ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 DETERMINING SUCH LOSSES. AS CAN BE SEE N FROM THE VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ORIGIN AL RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HAS FILED NIL INCOME AND AL ONG WITH THE SAME HAS FILED A STATEMENT OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES AM OUNTING TO `. 75 91 540/- AS PER THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN IN THE PAP ER BOOK. HOWEVER IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONS E TO NOTICE U/S.148 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE P AST LOSSES. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT SINCE IN OUR OPINION ONCE THE REVISED RETURN IS FILED THE SAME BECOME T HE FINAL RETURN. 9.1 SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE CARRY FO RWARD OF THE LOSSES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THE AO HAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED THE SAME IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSE E HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME THEREFORE CLAIMING THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 AS BROUGHT FORWARD AND SETTING OFF OF THE SAME AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR IN OUR OPINION IS NOT CORRECT. THE D ECISION IN THE CASE OF MANMOHAN DAS (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 8 CASE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 702 ARE AS UNDER :- THE SECOND QUESTION PRESENTS LITTLE DIFFICULTY. IN MAKING HIS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1950-51 THE INCOM E-TAX OFFICER DECLARED THAT THE LOSS COMPUTED IN THAT YEA R COULD NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT YEAR UNDER SECTION 24(2 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS IT WAS NOT A BUSINESS LOSS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS UNDER SECTION 24(3) TO NOTIFY TO THE AS SESSEE THE AMOUNT OF LOSS AS COMPUTED BY HIM IF IT IS ESTABLI SHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS SUFFERED LOSS OF PROFITS. SECTION 24(2) CONFERS A S TATUTORY RIGHT (SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT MATERI AL) UPON THE ASSESSEE WHO SUSTAINS A LOSS OF PROFITS IN ANY YEAR IN ANY BUSINESS PROFESSION OR VOCATION TO CARRY FORWARD T HE LOSS AS IS NOT SET OFF UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND TO SET IT OFF AGAINST HIS PROFITS AND GAINS IF ANY FROM THE SAME BUSINESS PROFESSION OR VOCATION FOR THAT YEAR. WHE THER THE LOSS OF PROFITS OR GAINS IN ANY YEAR MAY BE CARRIED FORW ARD TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE SAME BUSINESS PROFESSION OR VOCATION UNDER SECTION 24(2) HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHO DEAL S WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IT IS FOR THE IN COME-TAX OFFICER DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT IN THE SUBSEQUE NT YEAR TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LOSS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR MAY BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THAT YEAR. A DECISION RECORD ED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHO COMPUTES THE LOSS IN THE PRE VIOUS YEAR UNDER SECTION 24(3) THAT THE LOSS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 9.2 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE D ETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPEAL ORDER DENYING THE BENE FIT OF CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN H IS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO : 6235/MUM/2011 M/S. MAHAMERU TRADING CO. (P) LTD. 9 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 02 ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. S D/ - SD/- S D/ - - ( B. R. MITTAL ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAT MEMBER MUMBAI DT: 02.11.2011 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR B- BENCH ITAT MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI ROSHANI