9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esan (JM) Being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Trivandrum dated 1905-2010 for the assessment year 2005-06 the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Shri Vijay Narayan Govind, the ld.representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed return of income disclosing loss within the time prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. At the time of filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income-tax (1973) 90 ITR 236 (All). 3. On the contrary, Smt. Vijayaprabha, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has filed the original return based on provisional accounts. The return was filed within the time prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since the original return was filed on the basis of the provisional accounts, the carry forward of loss cannot be allowed which was claimed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the provisional accounts can be rectified by filing a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. This issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the case of Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra). The Madras High Court after considering the provisions of section 139(1), 139(3) and 139(5) of the Act found that the return of loss u/s 139(3) can be filed within the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sub-section (1)." In other words, a return filed under section 139(3) is deemed to be a return filed under section 139(1). The provision contained in section 139(3) makes it clear that all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such a return as if it were a return under section 139(1). In vie3w of such a specified provision, there is no reason to exclude the applicability of section 139(5) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
