1989 (8) TMI 353 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Allows Carry Forward of Loss: ITO Lacked Jurisdiction

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Satyanarayan Bhalotia

The Tribunal justified canceling the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, determining that the ITO lacked jurisdiction to rectify the assessment ... - Issues Involved:1. Justification of the Tribunal in canceling the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act.2. Determination and carry forward of speculative loss.3. Interpretation of sections 80 and 148(1) of the Income-tax Act.4. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under section 154.5. Finality of the assessment order for the previous year.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of the Tribunal in Canceling the Order Under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act:The Tribunal held that the authorities were not justified in invoking the provisions of section 154 as there was no mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to rectify the assessment under section 154 because the issue involved the interpretation of sections 80 and 148(1), which could conceivably have two opinions. This aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in T.S. Balram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., which stated that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake, not something requiring a long drawn process of reasoning.2. Determination and Carry Forward of Speculative Loss:The assessee suffered a speculative loss of Rs. 7,25,607 for the assessment year 1974-75, which was determined in an assessment completed on 30-6-1977. For the assessment year 1975-76, the ITO adjusted this speculative loss against the speculative profit but later contended that the loss could not be carried forward as it was determined in pursuance of a return filed under section 148 and not section 139. The Tribunal, however, concluded that a return filed in response to a notice under section 148 should be treated as a return filed under section 139, thereby allowing the carry forward and set off of the speculative loss.3. Interpretation of Sections 80 and 148(1) of the Income-tax Act:Section 80 stipulates that no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed under section 139 shall be carried forward and set off. Section 148(1) provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply as if the notice under section 148 were a notice issued under section 139(2). The Tribunal interpreted that a return filed in response to a notice under section 148 must be treated as a return filed under section 139, thus allowing the carry forward of the loss determined under such return.4. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) Under Section 154:The Tribunal held that the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to invoke section 154 to rectify the assessment because the issue involved the interpretation of legal provisions, which is beyond the scope of section 154. The Supreme Court's precedent in T.S. Balram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. was cited, which established that section 154 cannot be used to resolve issues requiring interpretation of the law.5. Finality of the Assessment Order for the Previous Year:The Tribunal noted that the determination of the speculative loss for the assessment year 1974-75 had become final and could not be challenged in the subsequent assessment year. The ITO should have first rectified the order for the assessment year 1974-75 before making any changes to the assessment for the year 1975-76. Since this was not done, the ITO's action to disallow the carry forward of the loss in the assessment year 1975-76 was invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal was justified in canceling the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The speculative loss determined for the assessment year 1974-75 should be carried forward and set off against the speculative profit for the assessment year 1975-76. The return filed in response to a notice under section 148 must be treated as a return filed under section 139. The ITO did not have the jurisdiction to rectify the assessment under section 154, and the finality of the assessment order for the previous year must be respected. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee.