2020 (12) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Assessment year 2001-02. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2018 on the following substantial question of law: Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is claim of carry forward of losses under section 72 of the Act even when the assessee had filed declaration as required under section 10B(8) of Act after due date of filing original return of income date is over and therefore, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of carry forward of losses and provisions of section 10B(8) are contravened? 2. The factual background, in which the aforesaid substantial question of law arises for consideration, needs mention. The assessee is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the tribunal erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim of carrying forward of losses under Section 72 of the Act even when the assessee had filed the declaration as required under Section 10B(8) of the Act after due date of filing original return of income was over. It ought to have been appreciated by the tribunal that the assessee cannot claim the benefit of carrying forward of losses as the provisions of Section 10B(8) of the Act were contravened. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee while inviting the attention of this court to Section 10B(8) of the Act contended that as per the aforesaid provision, submission of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....apply to him for any of the relevant assessment year. Thus from perusal of aforesaid provision, it contains twin requirements viz., the filing of a declaration and submission of such a declaration. 6. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in SARDAR AMRJIT SING KALARA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA, (2003) 3 SCC 272 has held that procedural laws have always been viewed as handmaid of justice and not to hamper the cause of justice. It has further been held that technical objection which tend to be stumbling blocks to defeat and delay substantial and effective justice should be viewed strictly for being discouraged except when mandate of law inevitably necessitates it. (ALSO SEE: SAMBHAJI VS. GANGABAI, (2008) 17 SCC 117, RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA VS. PR....