9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recting the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of business loss in the assessment year 1988-89 in contravention of the provisions of sections 80 and 139(3) in this regard?" The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee"), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The assessee filed a return of loss on August 25, 1988. The claim of loss was disallowed on the ground that the return was filed beyond time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was allowed. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee contended that the time specified for filing the return of loss i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer and the application for extension of time is deemed to have been allowed. In this way, the return filed by the assessee is deemed to be within time specified under section 139(1) of the Act. In the case of Harmanjit Trust v. CIT reported in [1984] 148 ITR 214 the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows: "As is plain from the proviso to section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee has been conferred a right to make an application in the prescribed manner to the Income-tax Officer praying for extending the date for furnishing the return and the Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, extend such date. Rule 13 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, prescribed that for the said purpose, Form No. 6 be employed. In the text of F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. reported in [1993] 202 ITR 532 (Cal), the assessee has filed a return of loss. Time was sought for extension in filing the return. No decision was rendered or communicated by the Income-tax Officer about the extension or its rejection. The return was filed within the extended period. However, the assessing authority disallowed the claim of loss on the ground that the return was not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1). The Tribunal allowed the claim in the reference filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as follows: "In our view, the Tribunal was right in allowing the benefit of carry forward of loss. If the assessee had filed the return within the time allowed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 132 ITR 631, the Bombay High Court has held that where the application for extension of time for filing the return was filed, it is the duty of the officer concerned to reply. In the absence of any reply, it is held that the time is deemed to have been granted. In the case of CIT v. Ajanta Electricals reported in [1995] 215 ITR 114 (SC), extension of time for filing the return had been ignored on the ground that it was not filed within the period allowed originally. The apex court held that mere absence of a specific provision authorizing the Income-tax Officer to entertain an application made beyond time, it was not proper to hold that it was not open to the assessee to make an application under section 139(2) for extension of time after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
