9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lates to the propriety of the rejection of the return filed by the petitioner before the first respondent as out of time under section 22(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, The petitioner, which is a private limited company, filed a return on April 1, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61, the corresponding accounting year having ended on March 31, 1960, in which it showed A loss of Rs. 22,562 under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll squarely within section 22(3). Sri Hari Mills Ltd. v. First Income-tax Officer reiterated the principle and pointed out that unabsorbed development rebate also like unabsorbed depreciation would not fall within the ambit of section 22(2A). If, therefore, the return filed by the petitioner covered unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, which would fall under section 10(2), it will be cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not require two separate returns. In our opinion, therefore, the return filed by the petitioner was a composite one and should serve both section 22(2) and section 22(2A). If that part of the return which related to the carry over of business loss was filed out of time under section 22(2A), it did not ipso facto and ipiso jure follow that the return should be rejected in so far as it is under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r matters not falling within the purview of that sub-section. Viewed in that manner, the return filed by the petitioner for the year in question is valid and requires to be considered by the revenue, but only confined to unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate. That again would depend upon the factual examination whether the return covered both or either of them. In fact, Mr. Swaminathan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
