1991 (11) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be carried forward ?" The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee submitted his return of income on February 19, 1979. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on a net loss of Rs. 35,380. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not allow the loss to be carried forward on the ground that the return was not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was rejected. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee. It held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of carry forward of the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act and that the present controversy relates to a case under the 1961 Act. But that by itself cannot affect the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court because what is important is not the fact under which Act it was delivered but the principle underlying the same. It is the ratio of the decision that is binding. We are, therefore, to find out whether there is any substantial difference between the provisions of the two Acts on the basis of which it can be said that the ratio of Kulu Valley [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) is not applicable to the corresponding provision of the 1961 Act. In Kulu Valley's case [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC), the question for determination was whether section 22(2A) of the 1922 Act placed any limitation on the ri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3) of the 1922 Act are sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 139 of the. 1961 Act. On a careful comparison of the two sets of provisions, it is evident that there is no substantial difference between the two. The only perceptible difference was that, in the 1922 Act, under section 22(2A), the return of loss could have been made "either within the time prescribed by sub-section (1) or within such further time as the Income-tax Officer, in any case, might have allowed", the expression used in the corresponding provision of the 1961 Act, namely, section 139(3) was "within the time allowed under sub-section (1)". The expression "or the period extended by the Income-tax Officer" which appeared in section 22(2A) of the 1922 Act was found ....