ASSOCIATED ELECTRO CERAMICS Vs. CHAIRMAN CBDT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed an application under S. 119(2) of the IT Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the ITO to allow their claim for losses, unabsorbed depreciation and relief by way of investment allowance pertaining to the asst. Year 1977 78. The application was disposed of by the Board stating as follows :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board has rejected their application on irrelevant grounds; in several cases of hardship, the Board has interfered notwithstanding the fact that there is no specific provision to that effect under the Act; and, therefore, the decision made by the Board is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Circular No. 446 of 31st Dec., 1985, condoning delay in making refund claims, vide (1986) 54 CTR (St) 25 : (1986) 157 ITR (St) 50.

(3.) IN the present case, what is sought for is to allow their claim for losses, unabsorbed depreciation and relief by way of investment allowance pertaining to the asst. Year 1977 78. The objection raised is that, under S. 80, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return shall be carried forward and set off under the different provisions of the Act. The view that the application or claim alone is covered by S. 119(2)(b) and not a return may be correct, but it is not necessary to decide that question. Even proceeding on the basis that the said provision covers only a claim or an application, it could be seen that the claim raised in a return that its losses should be carried forward is also a claim, and that such a request cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is only made in a return and not by a separate application. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner does fall within the scope of the expression "claim". Though it is not a claim regarding exemption or deduction or refund to in S. 119(2)(b), it is definitely relatable to a claim arising under the category of any other relief available under the Act. The contention of learned counsel for the Department that if no power had been granted to an ITO or any other officer to condone the delay in making such a claim, the Board also cannot extend time, will not be correct, because this provision expressly provides that, where any time limit has been fixed, such time limit can be extended or delay condoned by the Board. Therefore, in my opinion, the Board has approached the matter in too technical a way and the finding that the "application or claim" referred to in S. 119(2) (b) does not cover a claim made in a return is not correct and hence the order or endorsement as per Annexures C and D shall stand quashed with a direction to the Board to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in this order and in accordance with law. Petition allowed. Rule made absolute.