2003 (7) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the CIT(A)-XXII, Kolkata and the only dispute is relating to allowance of carried forward capital loss of Rs. 9,96,122, Parties have been heard and record perused. 2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee had filed the return of income under section 139(1) on 31st October, 1998 declaring an income of Rs. 1,13,890 which was within the time allowed under section 139(1). Subseq .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal and pleaded that the provisions of sections 139(1), 139(3) and 139(5) read with section 80 were misconstrued by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) held that since the revised return replaced the original return, it had the same effect as the original one. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra v. CIT134 ITR 352, the CIT(A) came to the conc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ). It is not disputed that the original return disclosed a profit. Subsequently, it was found that the assessee had, in fact, incurred loss of Rs. 9,96,122. If the assessee had not committed to par take the original return filed by the assessee declaring positive income would be a loss return declaring a loss of Rs. 9,96,122. Thus, the only drawback in the return filed under section 139(1) within .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X