TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (5) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, therefore, disposed of by this single order. 2. The only dispute in these appeals relates to the assessee's claim for benefit of set off of carry forward business loss. The benefit was denied to the assessee by the ITO in accordance with the directions given by the IAC under s. 144A issued on 11th March, 1982. The basis for dyeing that benefit was that the return of income for the earlier ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The main contention of the representative for the Department was that the interpretation placed by the various High Court in this behalf if based on a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) which was a case decided under the old Act of 1922. Now we have get an amended sub-s. (3) of s. 139 which reads as under: 139(3) "if any person w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f loss when the return has not been filed within the time prescribed by s. 139(1) or such further time as has been allowed by the ITO. According to the Departmental Representative the language used is clear and it is not open for the Courts to take to interpret in a different manner. A number of authorities were cited for the proposition that when the language of the statute is clear, it is not op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also considered the matter of view in the case of Delhi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (1984) 10 ITD 839 (Del-Trib). It is the common view taken in all these authorities that the benefit of carry forward of losses is available to the assessee even if he had filed the return within the time prescribed in s. 139(4) of the IT Act. Rather the view taken by the M. P. High Court in (1983) 143 ITR 9....