| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3056 1971 SLD 3056 = 1971 PTD 444 |
Madras High Court
Writ Petition No. 1896 of 1964, decided on 5th February 1968.
Presented By: Veeraswami and Ramaprasada Rao, JJ
S. Swaminathan and K. Ramagopal for Petitioner. V. Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1896 of 1964, decided on 5th February 1968.
Presented By: Veeraswami and Ramaprasada Rao, JJ
S. Swaminathan and K. Ramagopal for Petitioner. V. Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for
Respondents.
SATHAPPA TEXTILES (PRIVATE) .LTD.
VERSUS
SECOND INCOME-TAX CIRCLE II, COIMBATORE, AND ANOTHER
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 22(2), (2-A), 24(2).
Income-tax-Loss-Carry forward-Return of loss showing unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate-Return barred by time under S. 22 (2-A)-Whether claim of unabsorbed deprecia tion and development rebate also can be rejected-Indian Income tax Act, 1922, Ss. 22(2), (2-A) & 24(2). For the assessment year 1960-61, relevant for the accounting year ending March 31, 1960, the petitioner-company filed its return on April 1, 1961, disclosing a loss of Rs 22,562 which amount did not include unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate for the year. The return, however, showed the figure of unabsorbed depreciation. The Department took the view that the return was out of time under section 22(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and rejected it entirely. In a writ petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court : Held, where an assessee claims to carry over business loss as well as unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, they have all to be included in one return, though the first part of the claim would fall under section 22(2-A) and the other part under section 22(2) ; and if the return filed is a composite one under both the sections, though the portion relating to carry forward of loss was belated under section 22(2-A), the other part of the return relating to unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate must be considered by the officer, inasmuch as the carry-forward of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate does not fall within the ambit of section 22(2-A). Commissioner of Income-tax v. Speed-A-Way (Private) Ltd. (1967) 65 I T R 351 and Sri Hari Mills Ltd. v. First Income-tax officer, Coimbatore (1967) 65 I T R 348 ref. JUDGMENT VEERASWAMI, J.-The question in this petition relates to the propriety of the rejection of the return filed by the petitioner before the first respondent as out of time under section 22(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner, which is a private limited company, filed a return on April 1, 1961, for the assess ment year 1960-61, the corresponding accounting year having ended on March 31, 1960, in which it showed a loss of Rs. 22,562 under the head of "business". This did not include unabsorbed…