TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes duty of Income-tax Officer to communicate extension decisions</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rohit Organics (P.) Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rohit Organics (P.) Ltd. - [2006] 281 ITR 194, 202 CTR 512, 150 TAXMANN 254 Issues involved:1. Interpretation of provisions regarding carry forward of business loss under sections 80 and 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:The High Court of Allahabad was presented with a question of law by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the legality of directing the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of business loss in a specific assessment year. The case involved the assessee, a company, filing a return of loss beyond the prescribed time under section 139(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the application for extending the time for filing the return had not been rejected, and thus, the return was deemed to be filed within the specified time. The Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on a previous case law. The Revenue appealed this decision, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, leading to the case being brought before the High Court.The Court examined the facts and found no error in the Tribunal's order. It noted that the assessee had applied for an extension of time, and since there was no communication from the Assessing Officer regarding the rejection of the application, the return filed by the assessee was deemed to be within the specified time under section 139(1) of the Act. The Court referenced the decision in Harmanjit Trust v. CIT, emphasizing the right of the assessee to apply for an extension of time for filing the return, and the duty of the Income-tax Officer to communicate the decision on such applications.In another case, the Calcutta High Court held that if an assessee files a return within the time allowed by the Income-tax Officer, they are entitled to the benefit of carrying forward the loss as determined in the assessment. The Court stressed that if no decision is communicated by the Income-tax Officer regarding an application for extension of time, it must be presumed that the extension was allowed. The Court further cited a Bombay High Court case where the duty was placed on the officer to reply to an application for extension, and in the absence of a reply, the time was deemed to be granted.Additionally, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ajanta Electricals emphasized that the Income-tax Officer must either grant or reject an application for extension of time, and cannot ignore such requests. The Allahabad High Court in Jan Daood and Co v. ITO reiterated the importance of communication from the Income-tax Officer regarding the extension of time for filing returns.In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of communication and the duty of the Income-tax Officer to respond to applications for extension of time for filing returns.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
