9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciation. All these returns were lodged by the Income-tax Officer under section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returns were filed beyond the time specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Under section 139(10) of the Act, as it then stood, such returns were deemed never to have been furnished. The petitioner, after an interval of four years, in June, 1994, applied to the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condoning the delay in filing the returns. The reasons put forth in support of the prayer were that there was labour unrest and that the company had now become a sick company. The documents produced to show the labour unrest that had existed related to the period prior to the relevant ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 119(2)(b). The circumstances are required to be examined and only with regard to those circumstances relief is to be either granted or refused. Though the Board was found to be justified in holding that the labour unrest in the past year was of no relevance in considering the petitioner's prayer with regard to its actions in the year 1990, in relation to the assessment years during which there was no labour unrest, the Board does not appear to have applied its mind to the hardship which the assessee would have to endure by reason of the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for condonation having regard to the fact that it is a sick industrial company. The Board itself had issued circulars on August 31, 1990, on the effect of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company is to be treated and such a provision would have overriding effect over the provisions of the Income-tax Act. It is no doubt true that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in the case of the petitioner herein has not in the scheme framed by it provided for any special tax treatment for the carry forward of the loss. It was open to the petitioner to have sought inclusion of such a provision or even to seek the amendment of the scheme after it was made to include such a provision, but the petitioner had failed to do so, and the petitioner has to blame itself for its conduct in not availing of the opportunity which the law had afforded to it by seeking the inclusion of the suitable provision in the scheme framed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
