1978 (7) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt year 1964-65, it filed its income-tax return on October 9, 1964, disclosing loss of Rs. 11,600. The ITO assessed the loss at Rs. 5,010, but refused to carry forward the loss on the ground that the return had not been filed within the time prescribed by s. 139(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In an appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC upheld the order of the ITO refusing to carry forward the loss on the ground that the return had not been filed within the time permitted by s. 139(3) of the Act. In further appeal before the Tribunal, the view taken by the taxing authorities was affirmed relying upon the decision of the Mysore High Court in B. B. Danganavar v. ITO [1967] 65 ITR 370, on the ground that the assessee-company was not entitl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e time had not been extended by the ITO. No notice had been served on it under s. 22(2). By majority view, the Supreme Court held that the losses had to be determined and carried forward. By majority view it was also held that s. 24(2) confers the benefit of losses being set off and carried forward and there is no provision in s. 22 under which losses have to be determined for the purpose of s. 24(2). Section 22(2A) simply says that in order to get the benefit of s. 24(2) the assessee must submit his loss return within the time specified by s. 22(1). That provision must be read with s. 22(3) for the purpose of determining the time within which a return has to be submitted. It can well be said that s. 22(3) is merely a proviso to s. 22(1). T....