9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year involved is 1985-86, for which the accounting year, ended on 31-3-1985. It filed a return of loss on 7-10-1986, though the ITO granted extension of time till 30-9-1986 only. The ITO, therefore, held that the business loss of Rs. 43,624 cannot be carried forward to subsequent years. During the hearing of appeal it was stated by the assessee that it had applied for extension of time till 31st December, 1986 and the intimation of the ITO refusing to grant the time was received by the assessee only on 27-10-1986, i.e., after the assessee filed the return on 7-10-1986. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518. The CIT(Appeals) stated that it was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn under section 139(4) and claiming the carry forward of loss was lost by the amendment to section 80 made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 1-4-1985. Therefore, he urged that unless the return was filed under section 139(1) the loss was not entitled to be carried forward. He therefore urged that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in allowing the carry forward of loss for this year. In reply, the learned counsel, supported the order of the CIT(Appeals). 5. After due consideration, I am of the opinion that the decision of the CIT(Appeals) is justified in law and in the facts and circumstances stated above. Firstly, the legal provision under section 139(3) was that if any person who has not been served with a no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the result that the return must be treated as a valid return filed under section 139(1) within the time extended by the ITO. The Patna High Court in CIT v. Bishwanath Khirwal [1986] 161 ITR 382 has held that when once the assessee applies for extension of time and the ITO does not reject the prayer for extension of time for filing the return and does not communicate it to the assessee, then it has to be presumed that the assessee is right in assuming that extension of time has been granted. The Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Harmanjit Trust (148 ITR 214) pointed out that a duty is cast on the ITO to intimate to the assessee whether its request for extension of time for furnishing the return has been granted or refused. If t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
