TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iency as well as the claim were calculated at the rate of 6% of the capital employed. The ITO refused the claim for the past years but allowed the same for the year 1972-73, to the extent of Rs. 42,154. On appeal, the view of the ITO was affirmed. The assessee went up to the Tribunal. In relation to the first three years, namely, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the Tribunal held that it was admitted between both the parties that in all these years the assessee had suffered losses and the assessments had also been completed by computing the losses. In those years, the assessee did not make any specific claim for relief under s. 80J. It observed that s. 80J did not specifically require that a claim must be made under it in the year in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of s. 80J contemplates a case where the amount of profits and gains in the first assessment year falls short of the claimed deduction. In a case where there are no profits and gains, the entire deduction shall be carried forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent assessment years, and where the deficiency cannot be wholly so set off it shall be set off against such profits and gains of the subsequent assessment years and so on. Under the proviso, the carry forward shall not exceed beyond the seventh assessment year reckoned from the end of the initial assessment year. There are certain other conditions mentioned in the sub-section with which we are not concerned. The legislative intent behind s. 80J was to provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in the first or the relevant assessment year, in a case where admittedly loss has been sustained and there is no profit or gain against which the deduction could at all be adjusted. Learned counsel for the revenue relied upon a decision of this court in Sharda Prasad v. CIT [ 1975] 100 ITR 373 (All). In that case, a claim was liable to be made because the firm had earned profits but no such claim was made. The court pointed out that there was a specific provision in the return for making such a claim. It was held that, in the circumstances, the disallowance of the deduction under s. 80J could not be held to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record which can be rectified under s. 154 of the Act. That was a case where the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
