9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of time till 30th Sep, 1974 and subsequently applied once again for extension of time till 31st Dec, 1974. It appears that there was no reply on the applications filed by the assessee. The assessee actually filed the return on 8th Nov, 1974 before the ITO, B-II Ward, who was his assessing ITO prior to his starting of business in film line during the year under consideration. The return was filed within the time applied for, though it was filed before the ITO who was assessing him before he started the film business. On 23rd Oct, 1976, the assessee wrote to the ITO, B-II Ward to transfer his file, alongwith the return filed on 8th Nov, 1974 to the ITO, Film Circle. On the same day, it appears that the assessee filed a duplicate return for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit of the future years. According to him, the assessee should have appealed against the original assessment order in order to get a specific direction for carry forward of the loss to the future years. 4. The assessee naturally felt aggrieved against the categorical direction given by the ITO in his order dt. 12th Mar, 1980 passed u/s 155(1) to the effect that the loss determined by him should not be carried forward to be set off against the profits of the future years. He filed an appeal to the CIT (Appeals). Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Telster Advertising P. Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (Bom) 114: (1979) 116 ITR 610 (Bom). The CIT (Appeals) did not agree with the contentions of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any reply from the ITO rejecting the applications of the assessee, time till 31st Dec, 1974 must be deemed to have been granted as prayed for. Since the assessee had filed the return on 8th Nov, 1974 which was prior to 31st Nov,1974. Shri Trivedi urged that the requirements of s. 80 were fully satisfied, and so the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss which has been already determined in accordance with the law. He explained that he came in appeal only because the ITO, in his order u/s 155(1), has categorically stated that the loss would not be carried forward to be set off against the profits of the future years. He pointed out that the return filed by the assessee had been accepted, and acted upon and the loss has been det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us and examined by the ld. Representative for the Department. As stated at page 636 in the case of Lachman Chaturbhuj, in the absence of reply rejecting the application for extension of time, it is to be presumed that the time, as prayed for, has been granted. If that be so, then the return evidently filed on 8th Nov, 1974 was within time, and the loss determined on the basis of that return, has to be carried forward in accordance with the law for being set off against the profits of the future years. The assessee succeeds on this ground alone. We also find force in the other argument of the assessee that even if the return is taken to have been filed on 26th Mar, 1976, it was a return u/s 139(4) and so any loss determined on the basis of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
