9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Interpretation of section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the benefit of carry forward of loss for the assessment year 1985-86. Summary: The High Court of Calcutta addressed a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the entitlement to the benefit of carry forward of loss for the assessment year 1985-86. The case involved a private limited company that filed its return after multiple extension requests, ultimately showing a loss. The Assessing Officer did not allow the carry forward benefit due to perceived delays in filing. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also denied the benefit, emphasizing the necessity of a specific order allowing the time extension. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the presumption of acceptance of extension requests was reasonable. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of carry forward of loss, which was upheld by the High Court. The Court highlighted that if the return had been filed within the original or extended time allowed by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of carry forward of loss. In this case, despite the assessee submitting four extension applications, the Income-tax Officer did not address or approve them. Without any communication on the extension requests, the Officer proceeded to deny the benefit during assessment, assuming no extension was granted. The Court reasoned that in such circumstances, when no decision is communicated on extension applications, it must be presumed that the extension was granted. Even if an extension application is rejected without formal communication, the rejection is considered void, and the assessee can assume the extension was allowed. Consequently, the Court held that since the assessee was not informed of the status of the extension applications and filed the return within the requested extended period, the Income-tax Officer could not withhold the benefit of carry forward of loss determined in the assessment. Therefore, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
