TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (4) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, respectively, require in law to be determined and carried forward under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act?" The assessee is the Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. and admittedly no notices were served on the assessee under section 22(2) of the Act for the assessment years in question. The assessee did not furnish any returns in time in response to the general notices published under section 22(1), but in January, 1956, submitted returns showing the losses mentioned in the question. The Income-tax Officer refused to take any notice of the returns because they related to losses and had not been filed within the prescribed period, and he held that the company was not entitled to the benefit of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, setting forth (along with such other particulars as may be provided for in the notice) his total income and total world income during the previous year: Provided that the Income-tax Officer may in his discretion extend the date for the delivery of the return. (2A) If any person, who has not been served with a notice under sub- section (2) has sustained a loss of profits or gains in any year under the head 'profits and gains of business, profession or vocation', and such loss or any part thereof would ordinarily have been carried forward under sub-section (2) of section 24, he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection (1) or (2) up to any item before an assessment is actually made for the year in question. However, if that had been the intention of the legislture, one would have thought that when sub-section (2A) was introduced into the Act on the 1st of April, 1952, sub-section (3) would have been suitably amended so as to make it quite clear that it was not meant to be applicable to a loss return filed under sub-section (2A), and it appears to me to be doubtful whether sub-section (2A) detracts in any way from the provisions of sub- section (3). On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 I.T.R.569; [1960] 1S.C.R.114, in which in January, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time specified in sub-section (2A) and the assessee approached the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the Income-tax Officer to take up and complete the assessment for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 before the 31st of March, 1963, and the 31st of March, 1964, respectively. It was held by Y.S. Tambe and V.S. Desai JJ. that voluntary return of loss submitted by an assessee would be a good and valid return under sub-section (3) of section 22 even before the amendment of section 22 of the Act by the insertion of sub-section (2A) if it was made at any time before assessment, and the Income-tax Officer was bound to take the necessary action in respect of such a claim. It was also held that the fact that sub-section....