TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The view of the Tribunal that claims made by the assessee was rejected by reason of the order of "no assessment" is, therefore, not correct. The further inference drawn by it that there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue as there was no acceptance of the claim which showed a substantial amount of a carried forward loss on unabsorbed investment allowance, unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly endorsed "not assessable" on that return. That order was thereafter suo motu revised by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that unabsorbed investment allowance, unabsorbed depreciation as also unabsorbed development rebate ought to have been scrutinised by the Assessing Officer before accepting that return. That failure to carry out such scrutiny had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three-judge Bench of the apex court held that an order stating "no proceeding" by the Income-tax Officer, in the circumstances of that case, meant acceptance of the return and the assessment of the income as "nil". This court also has held to the same effect in the case of V. S. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 678. The Karnataka High Court has similarly held in the case of CIT v. M. P. Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
