1990 (6) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h he is a Member and which pertains to an assessee whose total income as computed by the assessing officer in the case does not exceed Rs. 1 lac. . .." The assessee's submission, through the present miscellaneous petition, is that the aforesaid sub-section (3) should be so interpreted that it would also include cases where the assessment results in the determination of total income at a minus figure, i.e., losses, and if the loss in question exceeds Rs. 1 lac, a Single Member Bench will not be able to hear it. 2. The assessee had filed his return of income for assessment year 1982-83 showing loss of Rs. 92,46,920. The assessing officer completed the assessment on 24th September, 1984 determining the net loss at Rs. 37,35,440. There was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e would include loss also for the purpose of assessment and, therefore, the words 'total income' would also cover loss figure. 5. In our opinion, the assessee's submission deserves to be rejected because a plain reading of sub-section (3) of section 255, extracted above, indicates that a Single Member Bench of the Tribunal can hear all those appeals, where total income determined by the assessing officer does not exceed Rs. 1 lac. The aforesaid phraseology does not suggest that the figure of Rs. 1 lac mentioned in the section should be understood in the Algebraical sense of either being a plus figure or a minus figure. The clause "total income does not exceed Rs. 1 lac" leaves a clear impression on the mind that Rs. 1 lac is positive figu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion in such case will definitely be of SMC. It is, therefore, futile, in the existing state of law, to look at the quantum of addition. What has to be looked at is the quantum of total income. 7. Then if one has loss of Rs. 1 lac, it is never said that his total income is Rs. 1 lac; what is said is that his total income is loss of Rs. 1 lac. Therefore, the argument of the assessee as above appears to us to be fallacious and we reject it. 8. Besides, as will be seen from the above discussion, what is involved in the present case is the interpretation of the statute, and further even of the assessee's view be possible, it would mean two views about the interpretation of statute. In either of these eventualities, a rectification u/s. 254(2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X