TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that it had filed extension applications from time to time seeking extension upto30th June, 1986and since, the return had been filed before the expiry of30th June, 1986, the loss may be allowed to be carried forward. The CIT(A) by the impugned order did not accept the claim of the assessee on the ground that the three of the four applications filed in Form No. 6 had not been filed after the expiry of the time, whether allowed originally or on extension and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of decision of the Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Vij Construction Co. (1986) 52 CTR (Pat) 112 : (1987) 165 ITR 732 (Pat), where their Lordships have held that the filing of extension application, if not rejected, amounts to granting of extension. It may be pertinent to mention that for asst. yr. 1986-87 also assessee had filed the return after the expiry of the time allowed originally under s. 139(1) and the Assessing Officer had declined to allow carry forward of loss. The CIT(A) having found the applications in Form No. 6 filed before the expiry of the time, held that assessee was entitled to presumption of extension and, therefore, was entitled to the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h June, 1985assessee has filed an application in Form No. 6 vide receipt No. 743983 seeking extension of time upto30th Sept., 1985. Since, this application has been filed well before the time allowed under s. 139(1) assessee was entitled to presume extension upto30th Sept., 1985. This is as per the view expressed by the CIT(A) himself in the impugned order on the basis of the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Vij Constn. Co. Assessee has filed further application in Form No. 6 as under: Date of filing Receipt No. Extension sought upto 26.11.85 965241 31.1.86 30.3.86 819280 30.4.86 19.5.86 114072 30.6.86 5. As is seen from above all the three applications have been filed after the expiry of the time for filing of the return under s. 139(1). Where applications are filed before the expiry of the time allowed for filing of the return under s. 139(1) either originally or on extension, there is no difficulty to hold that assessee would be justified in presuming grant of extension. This is the view supported by various judicial authorities, some of which are indicated below: 1. Lachman Chaturbhuj Java vs. R.G. Nitsure (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the proviso does not fix any time limit for filing of the applications on the basis of which the Assessing Officer is empowered to extend the date. The only condition imposed under the proviso is that the application is to be filed in the prescribed manner. Rule 13 of the IT Rules, 1962 which stands omitted w.e.f.1st April, 1989reads as under: "The application to the ITO under the proviso to sub-s. (1) or the proviso to sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (3) of s. 139 for seeking an extension of the date for furnishing a return of income shall be in Form No. 6." 7. Form No. 6 has been prescribed as under: "FORM NO. 6 Application for extension of the date for furnishing a return of income under s. 139 of the IT Act, 1961 To The Assessing Officer, ______________________ Under s. 139(1)/(2)/(3) of the IT Act, 1961, I/We have to file the return of my/our income___________ the income of ________ in respect of which I/we am/are assessable for the assessment year commencing on the 1st April, 19_______, before _______ 19_____. For the reasons given below, it' is not possible/has not been possible for me/us to file the return before the said date. 2. It is, therefore, req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime for furnishing the return of income, the ITO must consider the application giving the reasonable opportunity to all parties concerned and then pass a speaking order as to whether reasonable cause was shown or not". 9. In the case of Karam Singh vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 726 (P&H) their Lordships of thePunjab& Haryana High Court have held as under: "From the application form prescribed for asking for extension of time for filing of the return of income, it is clear that the application can be made even after the expiry of the prescribed date. Moreover, the proviso to s. 139(2) of the IT Act, 1961 does not contain any limitation to the effect that such an application must be made before the due date." 10. Considering the proviso to s. 139(1), r. 13 of the IT Rules and Form No. 6 and the aforementioned decisions, we are of the considered view that the assessee being entitled to file an application even after the expiry of the time allowed for furnishing of the return under s. 139(1), the Assessing Officer is duty bound to dispose of the same before deciding the issue relating to carry forward of loss, which is at the stage of assessment. When an application filed by the asse....