9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refusal to carry forward determined loss due to late filing of return. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Refusal to carry forward determined loss The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-B revolves around the refusal of the tax authorities to carry forward a determined loss of Rs. 3,17,010 due to the late filing of the return by the assessee. The return was initially due by 31st July 1984, with an extension granted until 25th Nov 1984. However, the return was filed on 10th Dec 1984, showing a loss of Rs. 2,94,978. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) computed the loss at Rs. 3,17,010 but opined that it could not be carried forward as the return was filed after the extended period. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court decision in Brij Mohan vs. CIT and the amendment under the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, affecting the carry forward of losses. The CIT(A) concluded that the return must be filed within the allowed or extended period to avail of the benefit of carrying forward the loss. Issue 2: Applicability of Legal Provisions The counsel for the assessee argued that the provisions of the 1922 Act were similar to the 1961 Act concerning sections 22 and 139, with the main distinction being the provision for interest under the latter. The counsel contended that the decision in CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. was relevant to the case, emphasizing that the observations made by the CIT(A) regarding the absence of an extension provision under the 1922 Act were incorrect. The counsel also highlighted the impact of the amendment to section 80 for the assessment year 1984-85, emphasizing that losses determined from returns filed under section 139(4) should also be carried forward. The counsel referenced CBDT Circular No. 397, dated 16th Oct 1984, explaining the amendment in section 80 and argued that it was binding on tax authorities. Additionally, the counsel presented a list of judgments supporting the assessee's position. Issue 3: Arguments and Counterarguments The Departmental Representative supported the tax authorities' decisions, reiterating the reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim. The representative emphasized that the amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, was not considered in the decisions cited by the assessee's counsel, pointing to specific judgments like Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd. and Gujarat Leather Industries Ltd. The Departmental Representative urged the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order. In response, the counsel for the assessee clarified that most decisions relied upon pertained to assessment years post the 1970 amendment and argued against the applicability of the said amendment to the issue at hand. Final Decision: After examining the submissions and relevant orders, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. Citing the majority view of High Courts and Tribunal judgments supporting the assessee's position, the Tribunal referred to the decision in Annu Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. by the Delhi Bench, which held that the amended provisions of section 80 would apply from 1st April 1985 and not retrospectively to the earlier assessment year. The Tribunal also noted that the observations in the Supreme Court's decision in Brij Mohan were not applicable to the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the ITO to carry forward the loss for adjustment in subsequent assessment years.
|
