9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the returns filed beyond the prescribed period. 2. Interpretation of Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Entitlement to carry forward losses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Returns Filed Beyond the Prescribed Period: The petitioner filed three returns on October 24, 1964, for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1964-65. The returns for the first two years disclosed losses and were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by sub-section (3) of Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim for set-off of these losses against the profits of the assessment year 1964-65. The petitioner contended that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in considering the first two returns as invalid and sought a writ of mandamus to compel the officer to consider these returns. 2. Interpretation of Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Section 139(3) allows a person who has not been served with a notice under sub-section (2) and who has sustained a loss to furnish a return of loss within the time allowed under sub-section (1). The petitioner argued that the phrase "all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1)" should be interpreted to mean that the Income-tax Officer has the power to extend the time for filing the return of loss. However, the court noted that the same phrase existed in the old sub-section (2A) of Section 22 of the 1922 Act, and it merely affirmed that the return should be dealt with in the same manner as any other return for scrutiny, assessment, or appeal. 3. Entitlement to Carry Forward Losses: The court emphasized that under Section 80 of the new Act, a loss can never be carried over unless it has been determined in pursuance of a return filed under Section 139. The court observed that the omission of the words "or within such further time as the Income-tax Officer in any case may allow" in the new Section 139(3) indicated a clear legislative intent to prevent the extension of time for filing returns of loss. The court held that the benefit of carrying forward losses is a statutory concession subject to strict compliance with the prescribed conditions. Since the petitioner's purpose was solely to carry forward the losses, and the returns were filed beyond the prescribed period, he was not entitled to this benefit. The court concluded that the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus was not justified as the returns were filed beyond the statutory period, and the Income-tax Officer's refusal to consider them was in accordance with the law. The writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of carrying forward losses as the returns were filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized the strict compliance required for statutory concessions and upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to reject the late-filed returns.
|
