Case Details

Citation(s)
1968 SLG 212 1968 SLD 212 (1968) 68 ITR 813
Mysore High Court
IT REFERRED CASE No. 25 OF 1966, MARCH 7, 1967
A. NARAYANA PAI AND B. VENKATASWAMI, JJ
K. Sreenivasan for the Applicant. S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy for the
Respondent

G. R. Jayarama Reddy

v.

Commissioner of INCOME TAX

Law:

Section:

Section 72, read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Losses - Carry forward and set off of business losses - Assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 - Assessee filed a 'loss' return and ITO held that this case fell under higher exemption limit; not assessable for 1956-57 - During assessment year 1957-58, ITO did not accept assessee's claim that order for preceding year had legal effect of accepting loss returned by him and that therefore, he was entitled to have said sum carried over to subsequent year - Whether order on return for assessment year 1956-57 had effect of computing loss of assessee for said year at amount returned and therefore, assessee was entitled to have same carried over to subsequent assessment year 1957-58 - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, ITO's order on return filed by assessee for assessment year 1956-57 need not be regarded as an assessment completed under section 23(1) of 1922 Act, but should be read as amounting to computation of loss for said year - Held, yes FACTS For the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee had filed a return declaring loss and the ITO after issue of notice under sections 23(2) and 22(4) concluded the assessment observing that this case fell under the higher exemption limit; hence not assessable. During the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee contended that the above order for the proceeding year had the legal effect of accepting the loss returned by him and that therefore he was entitled to have the said sum carried over to the subsequent assessment year 1957-58. Before all the authorities he relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in Esthuri Aswathiah v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 539; [1961] 2 SCR 911. All the authorities rejected the argument and also taken the view that the decision of the Supreme Court was not applicable to the facts of this case. On reference : HELD Notices were issued and it was after hearing the assessee on the question of status, etc. that the order mentioned above came to be passed. Hence, it could not be said that the assessment must be deemed to have been concluded under sub-section (1) of section 23. But what can be said as a matter of law, applying the law…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492