9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forward the loss on the ground that the return had been filed late. 3. On further appeal before the CIT (Appeals), it was contended that application in Form No. 6 seeking extension of time up to30th Sept., 1986had been filed. A subsequent argument, thereafter, was that since no intimation had been received from the AO, whether the extension sought for had been allowed or rejected, the company harboured under the impression that the said extension had, in fact, been allowed. For the aforesaid proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions :-- (i) Harmanjit Trust v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 214 (Pun. Har.) (ii) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java v. R. G. Nitsure [1981] 132 ITR 631 (Bom.) (iii) CIT v. Ramdas Sons [1980] 123 ITR 889 (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the bona fide belief that extension requested for, had been duly granted. By referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, namely, section 80 and section 139 read with Rule 13 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the learned counsel contended that the only condition which was required to be fulfilled, was that the return of loss be either filed prior to the due date and which, in this case, was 30-6-1986, or it be filed prior to the extended period and which, in this case, happened to be 30th September, 1986. The further submission was that, inasmuch as the return was filed within the extended period, i.e., on 18th September, 1986, there was no basis with the tax authorities to reject the claim for carry forward of the loss. It was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on behalf of the assessee. A combined reading of the relevant provisions of the Act, as they stood vis-a-vis the assessment year under appeal, leaves us in no doubt that, what was required to be fulfilled for enabling the assessee to carry forward a loss, was that either the return of loss be filed prior to the stipulated date or within the extended period made available by filing an application for extension. Insofar as the extension application was concerned, the AO was at liberty to reject or accept it and convey his orders to the assessee, but, in a case, where no such order had been conveyed, the assessee in view of the various decisions cited at the bar, could entertain a bona fide belief that the extension sought for, had been du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
