9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act on 18-3-1981. Thereafter, the return was filed on 20-4-1982 disclosing a loss of Rs. 1,25,760. The ITO made the assessment determining the business loss at Rs. 71,244 and depreciation at Rs. 21,518. The ITO, thus, determined the total loss for the year at Rs. 92,762 which was the sum of the aforesaid two figures. The ITO states that the return filed on 20-4-1982 was beyond the period of two years prescribed under section 139(4)(b)(iii) and so it was not a valid return under section 139 of the Act. Consequently, the ITO recorded in the assessment order that the assessee was not entitled to carry forward the loss computed by him. 3. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that the loss of Rs. 92,762 determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years. The case of the assessee before us, as stated by the learned representative for the assessee, is that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the returns and so the assessments were re-opened under section 146. If the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the returns earlier and if the ITO was satisfied about the same, he urged that the returns filed before the assessments were completed should be treated as valid returns even for the purpose of carry forward of the losses. He urged that the returns could not be valid for the purpose of making assessments and invalid for the purpose of carry forward of the losses. According to him, as long as the assessments were open, it was permissible for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arry forward of loss because of section 80. Further, he referred to the decision in the case of Smt. Parbati Devi v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 625 (All.). In this case, it was held that the voluntary return filed after the statutory period of four years was not a valid return. Shri S.K. Lahiri relied on this decision for the proposition that the return was filed beyond the period prescribed under section 139(4) and the same principle applied to the instant case. 8. We have considered the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record. The question raised in these appeals is as to whether the returns filed after re-opening the assessments under section 146 can be regarded as returns under section 139. If it can be so regarded, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for this decision of ours in the case of Kolhapur Central Co-op. Consumers Stores Ltd. In that case, it was held that the return filed beyond the statutory period is non est in law. Similarly, the principle laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Parbati Devi also applied to the facts of this case. In that case, it was held that the return filed voluntarily beyond the statutory period is not a valid return. The fact that the return was filed voluntarily in that case whereas the returns in the instant case were filed in section 146 proceedings does not make any difference to the aforesaid basic principle. Finally, in fairness to the learned representative for the assessee we must say that he has placed a copy of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
