TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solitary issue raised in the appeal is whether the return of income filed by the assessee on 11.09.2017 was within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), and consequently, whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward the business loss of Rs.26,44,861. 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is a Limited Liability Partnership constituted under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. For the financial year ended on 31.03.2017, the assessee had a turnover of Rs.48,39,850. Since its turnover exceeded Rs.40 lakh, its accounts were required to be audited in terms of Rule 24(8) of the Limited Liability Partnership Rules, 2009. The assessee accordingly got its accounts audited and obtained the audit report on 01.08.2017. The audit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statutory due date and the denial of carry forward of the business loss was a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification application was, however, rejected by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.02.2022. 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that the expression used in Explanation 2(a)(ii) to section 139(1) is not confined to an assessee whose accounts are required to be audited under the Income-tax Act. It expressly includes a person whose accounts are required to be audited "under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force." Since the assessee's turnover exceeded the limit prescribed under Rule 24(8) of the LLP Rules, its accounts were mandatorily required to be audited under another la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be audited under Rule 24(8) of the Limited Liability Partnership Rules, 2009; the accounts were in fact audited and the audit report was obtained on 01.08.2017; and the return of income was filed on 11.09.2017. The issue, therefore, turns upon the correct interpretation of Explanation 2(a)(ii) to section 139(1), which, insofar as relevant, prescribes the due date for a person, other than a company, whose accounts are required to be audited under the Income-tax Act "or under any other law for the time being in force." 8. The language employed by the Legislature is clear and leaves little room for any interpretative ambiguity. Explanation 2(a)(ii) recognises two distinct statutory sources from which the requirement of audit may arise: fir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t must be given to every part of the language consciously employed therein. 10. There is another important aspect. This is not a case where the assessee subsequently sought to claim that its accounts were audited under another law merely to overcome the consequence of filing a belated return. The statutory character of the assessee as an LLP, the turnover of Rs.48,39,850, the audit requirement under the LLP Rules, the audit report dated 01.08.2017 and the disclosure of that audit in the original return were all part of the contemporaneous record. Thus, the applicability of the due date of 30.09.2017 emanated from the return and the material accompanying it. The CPC nevertheless applied the date of 05.08.2017 applicable to a non-audit cas....