9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of the assessed loss despite the return being filed late, considering the provisions of section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Late Filing of Return and Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The core issue revolves around whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of assessed loss even though the return was filed late. The specific provisions of section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are pivotal to this determination. 2. Facts of the Case: The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing fluxes, was required to file its return by June 30, 1983, for the assessment year 1984-85. The assessee sought an extension until August 30, 1984, but the Assessing Officer refused to extend the time, a decision that was not communicated to the assessee. The assessee filed its return on July 30, 1984, within the period for which it had sought an extension, and disclosed a loss of Rs. 2,50,310. 3. Decisions of Lower Authorities: The Assessing Officer did not allow the carry forward of the loss due to the late filing of the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed this decision, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of the loss, citing the case of CIT v. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai [1983] 142 ITR 84 (Guj) which emphasized the statutory duty of the Assessing Officer to communicate decisions on applications for extension of time. 4. Tribunal's Decision: The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision, finding it just and proper. The Tribunal's decision led to the current reference to the High Court. 5. High Court's Analysis: The High Court examined whether the non-communication of the rejection of the extension application affected the validity of the return filing and the assessee's right to carry forward the loss. The court referred to the proviso to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, which grants the Income-tax Officer discretion to extend the filing date and mandates that such decisions be communicated to the assessee. 6. Principles of Natural Justice: The court emphasized the principles of natural justice, which require decisions to be communicated to the affected parties to prevent miscarriage of justice. The case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, was cited to underscore the importance of communication in ensuring fair administrative processes. 7. Supreme Court Precedents: The High Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika [1965-66] 28 FJR 464; AIR 1966 SC 1313, and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395, which established that an order is not effective until communicated to the affected party. 8. Effect of Non-Communication: The High Court concluded that the non-communication of the rejection of the extension application prejudiced the assessee, who was justified in believing that the extension had been granted. Consequently, the return filed within the extended period sought by the assessee should be considered valid. 9. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the assessed loss despite the late filing of the return. The court answered the reference in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, based on the specific provisions of section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Final Judgment: The High Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of the assessed loss, even though the return was filed late, given the specific provisions of section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference was answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and against the Revenue, with no orders as to costs.
|
