9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm called Orvee Construction Company. The return for the year under reference should have been filed by July 31, 1975, but it was filed on October 9, 1975, disclosing a loss of Rs. 61,730. That included the assessee's share of loss from Orvee Construction of Rs. 82,825. After setting off the income from business and after making certain disallowances, the net loss was determined by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 60,019 by his order dated January 16, 1979. Instead of carrying forward this loss to be set off against the income of future years, the Income-tax Officer declined to carry forward that loss on the ground that though the return of income was due on July 31, 1975, as per the provisions of section 139(1) it was filed only on October 9, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 838. Aggrieved, the Department filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre's case [1977] 108 ITR 838 confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before us, learned standing counsel for the Department, submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in accepting the return filed by the assessee belatedly without any application for condoning the delay. According to learned standing counsel, the Tribunal cannot suo motu co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular time limit prescribed in section 139(4)(b) of the Act. In the present case, there is no dispute that the return was filed under section 139(4) of the Act, before an assessment was made. Sub-section (4) of section 139 would be applicable both to the returns filed under section 139(1) and 139(2) as well as section 139(3). Therefore, sub-section (4) of section 139 would be applicable even if the return filed is under sub-section (3) of section 139. While considering the provisions of section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, read along with section 80 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, the High Courts of Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh have taken the view that the returns filed or deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
