TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (7) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... June, 1974. The assessee applied for extension of time till 30th Sep, 1974 and subsequently applied once again for extension of time till 31st Dec, 1974. It appears that there was no reply on the applications filed by the assessee. The assessee actually filed the return on 8th Nov, 1974 before the ITO, B-II Ward, who was his assessing ITO prior to his starting of business in film line during the year under consideration. The return was filed within the time applied for, though it was filed before the ITO who was assessing him before he started the film business. On 23rd Oct, 1976, the assessee wrote to the ITO, B-II Ward to transfer his file, alongwith the return filed on 8th Nov, 1974 to the ITO, Film Circle. On the same day, it appears t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y forward the loss to be set off against the profit of the future years. According to him, the assessee should have appealed against the original assessment order in order to get a specific direction for carry forward of the loss to the future years. 4. The assessee naturally felt aggrieved against the categorical direction given by the ITO in his order dt. 12th Mar, 1980 passed u/s 155(1) to the effect that the loss determined by him should not be carried forward to be set off against the profits of the future years. He filed an appeal to the CIT (Appeals). Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Telster Advertising P. Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (Bom) 114: (1979) 116 ITR 610 (Bom). The CIT (Appeals) did ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om) at p. 636, he urged that in the absence of any reply from the ITO rejecting the applications of the assessee, time till 31st Dec, 1974 must be deemed to have been granted as prayed for. Since the assessee had filed the return on 8th Nov, 1974 which was prior to 31st Nov,1974. Shri Trivedi urged that the requirements of s. 80 were fully satisfied, and so the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss which has been already determined in accordance with the law. He explained that he came in appeal only because the ITO, in his order u/s 155(1), has categorically stated that the loss would not be carried forward to be set off against the profits of the future years. He pointed out that the return filed by the assessee had been accepted....