9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refusal to grant extension of time for filing the return of loss. 2. Treatment of the return as non est under section 139(10) of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Refusal to grant extension of time for filing the return of loss The petitioner, a public sector undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, faced substantial losses accumulating to a significant amount. The petitioner sought an extension of time to file the return for the financial year 1985-86 due to delays in the appointment of the statutory auditor and subsequent tax audit under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The assessing authority and the Commissioner of Income-tax refused the extension, citing lack of satisfactory grounds and delay attributed to the petitioner's actions. The petitioner challenged these refusals in revision but was unsuccessful. The Court considered whether the respondents were justified in denying the extension and examined the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay. The Court noted the statutory obligations imposed on the petitioner for audits under the Companies Act and the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the necessity to complete the previous year's audit before commencing the audit for the relevant year. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's explanation for the delay and the absence of negligence or lack of bona fides in the submission of the return, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and allowing the original petitions. Issue 2: Treatment of the return as non est under section 139(10) of the Income-tax Act After the petitioner filed the return without the audited profit and loss account, the Income-tax Officer invoked section 139(10)(d) of the Income-tax Act, stating that a return of loss filed after the specified date shall be deemed never to have been furnished. The Officer treated the return as non est, a decision upheld in revision by the Commissioner. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the provisions of section 139(10) were not applicable in this case. The Court considered the applicability of section 139(10) introduced in the Income-tax Act from April 1, 1986, and examined a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes clarifying the scope of the provision. The Court overruled the contention that the Income-tax Officer lost the power to extend time under section 139(3) post the introduction of section 139(10), citing the circular's guidance. The Court also addressed a technical objection regarding the timeline of extensions sought by the petitioner, emphasizing that the extension granted up to March 31, 1988, encompassed the entire period leading up to that date. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders treating the return as non est and directed the respondents to process the return filed by the petitioner for assessment in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Court's judgment favored the petitioner, highlighting the statutory obligations, lack of negligence, and the public interest involved in the case of a public sector undertaking. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays, particularly when public entities are involved, and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's return for assessment without deeming it as non-existent.
|
