9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward a loss even though the return of income was submitted belatedly. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the carry forward of a loss by the assessee, who was a partner in a firm. The Income-tax Officer initially declined to carry forward the loss as the return was filed belatedly without any evidence of extension granted for the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held that the delay was justified due to the unavailability of share income details from the firm, which itself had applied for an extension. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner emphasized that a return filed within the time specified under section 139 of the Income-tax Act is valid, and the loss should be carried forward as per sections 72(1) and 80, citing the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre's case. The Department appealed to the Tribunal, contesting the acceptance of the belated return without a formal request for condoning the delay. The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. and the Calcutta High Court decision in Presidency Medical Centre's case, upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal considered the return as filed under section 139(4) of the Act, enabling the carry forward of the loss before assessment. In the High Court, it was argued that the Tribunal should not have accepted the belated return without a request for condonation. However, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing various High Court judgments and the Supreme Court decision in Kulu Valley Transport Co. The Court emphasized that returns filed under section 139(4) before assessment should be considered for carrying forward losses, as supported by decisions from multiple High Courts. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's order, directing the Assessing Officer to process the belated return and allow the carry forward of the loss to subsequent years. In conclusion, the Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Department. The decision was based on the interpretation of section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act and consistent judicial precedents supporting the carry forward of losses filed within the specified time limit under the Act.
|
