9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1985-86, the relevant previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1984. The return for the asst. yr. 1985-86 was due on 30th June, 1985. It was, however, filed on 26th Dec., 1985 declaring loss of Rs. 2,96,36,730. The Assessing Officer computed the loss at Rs. 1,25,35,993, vide his order dt. 27th Oct., 1987. The Assessing Officer, however, recorded a finding that the loss so computed will not be allowed to be carried forward for the reason that the assessee did not file the return before 30th Sept., 1985, the date upto which time to file the return was allowed by him. It may be stated that the assessee had applied in Form No. 6 on 28th June, 1985, seeking time to file the return upto 31st Aug., 1985. On 31st Aug., 1985, another application in Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file the return by 30th Sept., 1985. The assessee is represented by M/s M.H. Joshi Co., CAs, since many years and after the accounts had been finalised and general body meeting had been held on 29th Aug., 1985, there is apparently no valid reason as to why the assessee/assessee's representative could not file the return within the time allowed. No appeal lies against Assessing Officer's action in refusing the extension of time asked for. Therefore, whether there was reasonable cause or not for asking extension of time is not material while deciding the application of provisions of s. 80 even though the assessee-company further committed the default by not asking extension of time before the expiry of time earlier allowed upto 30th Sept. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and 1985. The workers had also started agitation. Many of the officers and staff had also left the service of the company, as their salary fell into arrears and there was atmosphere of uncertainty. The Chief Accountant and Company Secretary, who were head of accounts Department and some senior accountants had also left the service and the accounts Department was in a state of paralysis. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for the company to file the return by the due date. The learned counsel submitted that though the accounts were finalised in July, 1985, the chartered accountant made numerous queries and asked for several details from the company for the purpose of preparing the return, but such details could not be furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king extension upto 30th Nov., 1985 and 31st Dec., 1985 judiciously which has not been done. He pleaded that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of carry forward of the determined business loss could not be denied. Opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Revenue authorities and submitted that the application for extension of time which is filed beyond time cannot be considered by the Assessing Officer. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jugsalai Electric Supply Co. (1987) 63 CTR (Pat) 368 : (1987) 165 ITR 740 (Pat). The learned Departmental Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t approach the Assessing Officer and no application seeking extension for the month of October, 1985 was filed. There is no dispute on facts in this regard. The assessee sought further extension of time upto 30th Nov., 1985 vide application in Form No. 6, dt. 30th Oct., 1985, on grounds of taking out the details and preparing the statements for compiling the return. Admittedly no return was filed even within the time upto which further extension was sought. The assessee's stand is that the refusal for extension upto 30th Nov., 1985, was communicated to it on 7th Dec., 1985, and it was thereafter that all out efforts were made and the return was filed on 26th Dec., 1985 along with application for further extension upto 31st Dec., 1985. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer was legally competent to record a further finding that loss as computed by him will not be allowed to be carried forward. The argument of learned counsel for the assessee is that under s. 80 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had no authority to declare that loss determined by him will not be allowed to be carried forward. He has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manmohandas, as also the decision of Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ajith Kumar vs. Dy. CIT. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. According to him, the decision of the apex Court was rendered under s. 24(2) of the old Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
