9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Validity of loss returns filed beyond the statutory period under Section 139(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.
Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Loss Return for Assessment Year 1987-88 The assessee, a company, filed its return for the assessment year 1987-88 on 30-9-1987, declaring a net loss of Rs. 11,94,431. The Assessing Officer initially treated this return as non est and infructuous under Section 139(10) because it was filed beyond the due date of 31-7-1987. However, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer had granted an extension until 30-9-1987, making the return timely and valid. The revenue appealed against this decision. The Tribunal noted that before 1-4-1987, the Assessing Officer had the authority to grant extensions for loss returns. However, this power was withdrawn by the Taxation Laws (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986, effective from 1-4-1987. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's extension was beyond his jurisdiction, rendering the return invalid. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged that the loss was primarily due to unabsorbed depreciation (Rs. 13,37,514), not business loss, and thus Section 139(10) did not intend to cover such cases. Therefore, the return for 1987-88 was ultimately considered valid, but not for the reasons stated by the CIT(A). Issue 2: Validity of Loss Return for Assessment Year 1988-89 For the assessment year 1988-89, the assessee filed its return on 1-2-1989, declaring a loss of Rs. 66,62,817. The Assessing Officer treated the return as non est under Section 139(10) due to its late filing beyond the due date of 31-7-1988. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, and the assessee appealed. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 139(10) applies to all returns showing income below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, including loss returns. The proviso to Section 139(10) exempts only those loss returns filed before 31st July of the relevant assessment year. Since the return for 1988-89 was filed after this date, it was correctly treated as non est. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the return as invalid. Legal Interpretation and Precedents The Tribunal discussed the interpretation of Section 139(10) and its provisos, emphasizing that the provision applies to both positive and negative incomes. They rejected the reliance on the Tribunal's decision in Ampee Industries (P.) Ltd., where the loss return was treated as valid despite late filing, due to lack of consideration of the proviso (d) to Section 139(10). The Tribunal also distinguished the case of Weston Leasing & Finance (P.) Ltd., where the issue was about carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, not the validity of a late-filed loss return. The Tribunal concluded that the legislative intent was clear: all returns below the taxable limit, whether positive or negative, must be treated as non est unless falling within the specified exceptions. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh, which mandates giving effect to legal fictions created by the law. Conclusion For assessment year 1987-88, the return was ultimately considered valid due to the nature of the loss (unabsorbed depreciation), despite being filed late. For assessment year 1988-89, the return was correctly treated as non est due to late filing. Both appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal providing a detailed interpretation of Section 139(10) and its application to loss returns.
|
