1958 (9) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat we must give to the question submitted to us by the Tribunal is covered directly by a decision of this court in Ranchhoddas Karsondas v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 105, and also in Harakchand Makanji & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1948] 16 ITR 119 . A few facts may be stated. The assessee is a firm and on the 17th March, 1952, it made a return for the assessment year 194....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re dropped." This order proceeded on the assumption by the Income-tax Officer that the return had been filed under a notice issued under section 34. The assessee's contention was that it had filed a voluntary return on the 17th March, 1952, that there was a valid return under section 22(3), and as such the order of the Income-tax Officer passed under section 34 is invalid and bad in law. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... judgment this particular fact does not alter the application of the principle that we laid down in that case. As Mr. Kolah has pointed out to us, it may be vital for an assessee to have his loss assessed. In this case the assessee had also applied for registration and if the firm had been registered the losses assessed could have been allocated to each of the partners according to his share and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... can refuse to assess a loss shown in a return, the more so as in this case he actually issued a notice under section 23(2) after the return had been made. Mr. Joshi is not in a position to distinguish Ranchhod's case (supra) but he put forward a rather amazing argument that because he wants to appeal to the Supreme Court he wants to satisfy us that the judgment is erroneous because a certa....