1982 (5) TMI 61 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds carry forward claim but remands for assessment of fulfillment of conditions.

Income Tax Officer. Versus Kamla Knitting Works Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the claim under section 80J(3) for carry forward and set off of deficiencies from earlier years. However, it found a ... Deductions, Profits And Gains From Newly Established Industrial Undertaking Issues:1. Allowance of claim under section 80J(3) for carry forward and set off of deficiencies from earlier years.2. Interpretation of whether a claim for deficiency under section 80J(3) can be made in a subsequent year when profit is earned, even if not made in the year of deficiency.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 1976-77, concerning the claim under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a company manufacturing knitted clothes, sought to carry forward and set off a deficiency of Rs. 10,718 from the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, and 1973-74 under section 80J(3). The ITO rejected the claim on the ground that the deficiencies were not quantified during the relevant assessment years. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the ITO to allow the claim based on a decision that emphasized the intent of providing relief under section 80J without a specific requirement for a claim in the initial assessment year.2. The main contention in the appeal was whether the claim for deficiency under section 80J(3) could be entertained in a subsequent year when profit was earned, even if not made in the year of deficiency. The department argued that the claim should have been made in the relevant assessment years, relying on a Supreme Court decision. The assessee, on the other hand, supported the Commissioner's order, citing a decision that allowed such claims in the year of profit. The assessee also referred to other cases supporting the allowance of deficiency claims in subsequent years without prior determination in the year of deficiency.3. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties and referred to relevant case laws to determine the validity of the claim under section 80J(3). It highlighted the distinction between cases where a claim was not made at all and cases where a claim was made but lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal concluded that since the claim was made before the ITO, it fell under the exception where the claim was not entirely omitted. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the claim based on precedents and interpretations of the law provided by various High Courts and previous decisions.4. However, the Tribunal found a flaw in the Commissioner's order as the ITO had not assessed whether the conditions under section 80J(2) were met before allowing the claim. Therefore, the Tribunal vacated the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter back to the ITO for a detailed examination of whether the conditions under section 80J(2) were fulfilled by the assessee in the years of deficiency. The ITO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case before making a decision in accordance with the law.5. In conclusion, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the ITO for a thorough assessment of the conditions under section 80J(2) before deciding on the allowance of the claim for carry forward and set off of deficiencies from earlier years under section 80J(3).